get-weather-live

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states it returns 'real-time weather' but omits key traits like what happens on invalid input, error responses, or any side effects. The description is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences, delivering essential information without any fluff. Every word serves a purpose.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the basic purpose and input. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral details, which are important for correct invocation. It is minimally adequate but not fully complete.

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 schema already documents the 'city' parameter. The description repeats the same info (city name or 6-digit adcode) without adding new semantic meaning like valid formats or examples, resulting in no added value beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states '获取指定城市的实况天气' (get real-time weather for a specified city) with data source '高德地图' (Amap). The verb 'get' and resource 'live weather' are specific, and the sibling tool 'get-weather-forecast' indicates this tool is for live data, distinguishing it well.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'get-weather-forecast'. The description only explains parameter input format, not usage context or conditions. This lack of differentiation leaves the agent uncertain about which tool to call.

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