google_weather

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It states the tool gets current conditions and forecast, but does not elaborate on the forecast duration, response format, or any limitations (e.g., rate limits, region coverage). Since an output schema exists, the return values are handled externally, but the description lacks depth in behavioral context.

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 structured with a main statement, a list of sample prompts, and an args section. The sample prompts are valuable but take up space; they could be condensed. Overall, it communicates the needed information without excessive redundancy.

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, clear purpose) and the existence of an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers what the tool does and how to invoke it. However, it omits any details about the forecast scope (e.g., hourly, daily) or potential caveats (e.g., coverage for specific regions).

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 0% description coverage for the only parameter 'location'. The description compensates well by specifying it as 'The city or location to get weather for' and providing concrete examples (e.g., 'Dubai', 'London, UK'). This adds meaning beyond the schema. However, it could be slightly more precise about acceptable formats.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get current weather conditions and forecast for any location.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('weather conditions and forecast'), and the sample prompts reinforce this. Among siblings, there is no other weather tool, so differentiation is not an issue.

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 sample prompts that implicitly suggest when to use the tool (e.g., for weather queries like 'What's the weather in Dubai?'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or direct the agent to alternatives. With 37 sibling tools, explicit usage guidance would be beneficial.

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