get_weather_by_position

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

The description discloses the aggregation and fallback behavior, and the return structure with success and error keys. With no annotations, this provides useful transparency, though it lacks details on data freshness, units, or rate limits.

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 moderately concise with a clear summary line and structured Args/Returns sections. It avoids verbosity, though the mix of languages and detailed sections adds some length.

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 no output schema, the description covers return values and error structure. It explains key behavioral aspects and parameters. Minor gaps remain (coordinate range, units), but overall adequate for a weather tool.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description explains each parameter: lat/lon as coordinates and provider with possible values (all/qweather/open-meteo/wttr), fully compensating for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 states the verb 'get' and the resource 'weather by position', and specifies the scope (current, hourly, daily) and aggregation with fallback. It distinguishes from siblings like get_weather_by_name which is for city names.

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 usage for coordinate-based queries and notes that open-meteo requires no API key, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. Sibling tool get_weather_by_name exists but no comparative guidance.

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