get_daily_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: error result (isError) for out-of-range coordinates or API unreachability, geographic coverage, and unit conventions. No contradiction with annotations; the description enriches what the annotations already communicate.

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 compact (four sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: content list, usage guidance, units, error handling, and coverage. No redundant or filler text.

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 tool with no output schema, the description fully covers the output shape (high/low, condition, precipitation, wind), units, error behavior, and geographical scope. It also integrates guidance on when to use alternatives, making it self-contained for the agent.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema, only reiterating the days range and default. It does not clarify latitude/longitude beyond what the schema provides, nor does it add format details for coordinates.

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 begins with a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('daily weather summary') with a precise scope (next 1-10 days, default 7). It enumerates the content (high/low temp, dominant condition, precipitation total, max wind speed), distinguishing it from forecast siblings by emphasizing the daily aggregation and at-a-glance nature.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('multi-day outlook at a glance') and names the alternatives to use when hour-level detail is needed (get_hourly_forecast or get_forecast). This gives the agent clear decision criteria and prevents misuse.

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