singapore_get_air_temperature

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds some genuine context: local-date semantics, default-to-latest behavior, and an unusual pagination-token consumption rule. It omits rate limits, error conditions, and what happens on empty results.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and unit, which is good. But the final sentence about consuming local offsets before continuing the preserved upstream pagination token is cryptic and poorly integrated, costing clarity per word.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Still, for a seven-parameter tool with weak schema coverage and an unusual pagination token, the description omits enough that an agent cannot confidently choose values for region, area, station_id, or offset/limit interplay.

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?

Schema description coverage is only 14%, so the description must compensate, but it only clarifies the date parameter (Singapore local dates, latest if omitted) and slightly the pagination token. The seven parameters area, region, station_id, limit, and offset receive no semantic explanation in the description, and the schema leaves most of them bare.

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?

States a specific resource and unit (NEA temperature in degrees Celsius), which distinguishes it from sibling weather tools like singapore_get_rainfall and singapore_get_relative_humidity. However, it does not explicitly say 'retrieve air temperature readings', leaving the verb implicit and giving no sibling differentiation beyond the implicit unit.

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?

It implies default behavior ('latest if omitted') but never says when an agent should prefer this over singapore_get_forecast_2h, singapore_get_rainfall, or singapore_list_weather_stations. No exclusions or routing guidance are present.

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