get_weather

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the character of the data ('reports what is actually falling... rather than only a temperature'), but says nothing about permission needs, units, failure modes, or what the response contains.

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?

Three sentences: purpose front-loaded, then usage trigger, then a differentiator. No filler, and each sentence adds a distinct piece of information.

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 3-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers purpose and usage but leaves coordinate units, forecast horizon, and returned data shape unaddressed. Adequate to select the tool, thin for calling it precisely.

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 coverage is 33%, so the description should compensate but mostly doesn't. 'At a coordinate' implies lat/lon without specifying units or format, and it never mentions the hours horizon parameter, whose default/max is only documented inside 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?

The first sentence gives a specific verb+resource+scope: current conditions and a short forecast at a coordinate. It is clearly distinct from terrain or daylight siblings by domain, but it never names or contrasts a sibling explicitly, so it stops short of the top score.

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?

It states concrete triggering situations (before recommending walk/cycle/drive, or choosing indoor vs outdoor), which is clearer than typical implied usage. It offers no when-not guidance and does not point to an alternative tool for other weather needs.

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