get_activity_weather

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does so well. It exposes a significant API quirk: raw temperatures are Fahrenheit without unit indicators and are converted to the account's display unit. It also explains how wind speed is handled and what unit fields will be present, going far beyond the schema.

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 front-loaded with the one-line purpose, followed by unit-conversion details that are essential for correct interpretation of returned values. Each paragraph earns its place, and the Args section is minimal and clear.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the required input, unit conversion behavior, and output labeling via field names. No critical operational detail is missing.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining that activity_id is 'ID of the activity to retrieve weather data for.' This gives semantic meaning to a parameter that otherwise has only a type and title.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get weather data for an activity.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling activity tools like get_activity_splits or get_activity by identifying the exact domain (weather) and target (an activity).

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 intended use is clear: call this when you need weather data for a specific activity identified by activity_id. It does not name alternatives or exclusion cases, but there is no ambiguity about when this tool applies given the explicit 'for an activity' scope.

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