get_current_weather

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the purpose and input methods, without mentioning return format, default units, error behavior, or the fact that this is a read-only operation. No additional behavioral context is added beyond what the schema already implies.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action and resource. It contains no filler, unnecessary qualifiers, or repetition, earning a perfect score for conciseness.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with 4 optional parameters all documented in the schema, but the description does not explain what 'current weather conditions' includes in the response, nor does it nod to sibling tools for differentiation. It is minimally complete for a straightforward read operation, but it lacks a clearer sense of the overall context.

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 a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description adds a small amount of context by linking 'city name' to the location parameter and 'coordinates' to latitude/longitude, but it does not clarify precedence (e.g., location is preferred) or units behavior, which are already in the schema, so no significant extra value.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('current weather conditions'), while also specifying scope ('any location worldwide') and method ('by city name or coordinates'). It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like get_forecast by focusing on 'current' conditions, but does not explicitly name alternatives, so it loses a point for lack of direct sibling differentiation.

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 context with 'any location worldwide' and 'current weather', but it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it reference sibling tools like get_forecast or get_alerts. This gives a general sense of applicability but falls short of clear alternatives or exclusions.

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