get_activity_weather

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does so thoroughly. It explains that the raw endpoint returns Fahrenheit without a unit indicator, that this tool converts temperatures to the account's display unit, and that wind speed is passed through unconverted with its own unit label. This gives the agent essential behavioral context beyond the tool name.

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 opens with a clear one-sentence purpose and then uses short, organized paragraphs for unit-conversion behavior, followed by an Args section. Every sentence adds useful information, and the structure makes the content easy to scan.

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 has only one required parameter and an output schema is present, the description covers all essential context: what the tool does, what the activity_id means, and the key behavioral quirk around unit conversion. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 no parameter descriptions, so the description must compensate. The Args section says 'activity_id: ID of the activity to retrieve weather data for,' which clarifies which activity the ID refers to beyond the schema title 'Activity Id.' For a single, self-explanatory identifier parameter, this is sufficient semantic guidance.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Get weather data for an activity.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from the many activity-related siblings, none of which are about weather. The resource and scope are exactly what an agent needs to select it.

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 makes the usage context clear: use this when weather data for a particular activity is needed. It does not name exclusions or alternative tools, but the purpose is specific enough that an agent can identify this as the weather-specific activity getter among the sibling tools.

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