get_current_weather

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds critical behavioral details: it returns an error result (isError: true) for out-of-range coordinates or API unreachability, and clarifies that it returns the nearest forecast time step, not actual real-time measurements. It also specifies units for all returned values. No contradictions with annotations.

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 three sentences: definition, usage guidance, and units/error/coverage. It is front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence adds distinct information without repetition or filler. The structure is efficient and well-organized.

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 simple tool (2 params, no output schema), the description is comprehensive: it lists returned variables, provides usage context, explains units, alleges error behavior, and states geographic coverage. The annotations further cover safety and idempotency. There is no missing critical information for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters with ranges. The description adds value by explaining that out-of-range coordinates will produce an error, which clarifies the enforcement of the schema bounds. It also implies the parameters are coordinates within the covered region, though it doesn't detail formatting beyond 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get current weather conditions' and enumerates the data fields (temperature, wind, humidity, precipitation, description). It explicitly distinguishes this tool from siblings by noting it returns the nearest forecast time step, versus hourly or daily tools. This clearly differentiates it from get_hourly_forecast, get_daily_summary, and get_forecast.

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 direct usage guidance: 'Use this for a quick "what's the weather like right now" snapshot' and explicitly names alternatives for other time horizons. It also mentions geographical coverage, setting expectations for where the tool works. This is explicit and actionable.

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