query_openweather

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the API key requirement and that 'appid will be added automatically', which are useful behavioral details. However, it lacks information on rate limits, error handling, authentication specifics, or response structure beyond 'Raw JSON response'.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is efficiently structured with a clear opening sentence stating the purpose, followed by bullet-point-like sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of a raw API query tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose, parameters, and return type, but lacks details on error cases, rate limits, or example usage that would help an agent invoke it correctly in various scenarios.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining both parameters: 'endpoint' is described with examples (e.g., '/data/2.5/weather'), and 'params' is clarified as query parameters with the note that 'appid will be added automatically'. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the specific action ('Make a raw query') and target resource ('OpenWeather API'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_global_weather' or 'get_weather_forecast' by emphasizing its raw, direct API access nature rather than processed weather data retrieval.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool (for raw API queries to OpenWeather) and mentions a prerequisite (requires OPENWEATHER_API_KEY), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools for comparison.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.