get_hourly_history

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

The description adds context beyond the input schema by listing returned data fields (temperature, humidity, wind, precipitation). Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden. It does not disclose potential rate limits, data freshness, or whether historical data beyond 24 hours is unavailable. The behavior is largely inferred as a read-only query.

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 a single sentence that conveys the purpose, scope, and key data fields. It is front-loaded and efficient, though it could be slightly more concise by removing the repeated station ID in parentheses.

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 tool's low complexity (1 optional parameter, no output schema needed for a simple data list), the description covers the essential information. It lacks return format details but is sufficient for an agent to understand what data it will receive.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage with a clear description for the 'hours' parameter (range 1–24, default 24). The description adds no further parameter details, so the baseline of 3 applies. It does not explain what happens if hours is omitted or out of range.

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 specifies a clear verb ('Get'), resource ('hour-by-hour weather history'), scope ('up to the last 24 hours'), station ID, and data fields (temperature, humidity, wind, precipitation). This differentiates it from siblings like 'get_current_conditions' (single snapshot) and 'get_daily_summary' (daily aggregates).

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 implies when to use this tool (to get detailed hourly history for the past 24 hours). It contrasts with siblings by mentioning hour-by-hour granularity and specific fields. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives for longer periods.

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