get_weather_by_position

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the API dependency (QWeather) and authentication requirement (QWEATHER_API_KEY environment variable), which are important behavioral traits. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, error handling beyond ValueError, or response format details beyond the basic structure.

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 appropriately sized and well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Raises). Every sentence adds value, though the 'Args' and 'Returns' sections could be slightly more concise while maintaining clarity.

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 2-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate coverage of purpose, parameters, and basic behavior. However, it lacks details about the actual weather data structure in the response, error scenarios beyond missing API key, and performance characteristics that would be helpful for an 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides clear semantic meaning for both parameters (latitude and longitude of the location) beyond what the bare schema offers. The description explains what these coordinates represent and their purpose in the API call.

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 specific action ('Fetches weather data'), resource ('for a specified location'), and method ('by its geographic coordinates using the QWeather API'). It distinguishes from sibling 'get_weather_by_name' by specifying coordinate-based lookup versus name-based lookup.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (when you have geographic coordinates) and implicitly distinguishes it from 'get_weather_by_name' (which uses location names). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or mention all alternatives among siblings.

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