get_current_weather

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It does state the geographical coverage and the returned fields, which is helpful, but it omits critical details such as units of measurement, behavior for out-of-coverage locations, and data freshness. This leaves significant ambiguity for the agent.

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 concise and well-structured, with two front-loaded sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose and output fields, and the second adds important coverage constraints. Every sentence earns its place without unnecessary verbiage.

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?

While the description covers the basic purpose and return fields, it is incomplete given the lack of an output schema and annotations. It does not specify units, error behaviors, or how to choose among sibling tools. However, the tool is relatively simple, so a moderate score seems appropriate.

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 includes full descriptions for both latitude and longitude parameters with valid ranges. The tool description adds no additional parameter context, so the schema description coverage is 100%, warranting a baseline score of 3.

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 identifies the tool as retrieving current weather conditions for a location, listing the specific data returned (temperature, wind, humidity, precipitation, weather description). It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing 'current' and the specific coverage area, though it does not explicitly reference alternative tools.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (get_forecast, get_hourly_forecast, etc.). It implies usage for current conditions but lacks explicit recommendations, exclusions, or mentions of alternative tools.

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