Get Current Weather

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral facts — '支持英文城市名' (English city names supported) and '返回中文天气信息' (Chinese weather output) — and '查询' implies a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose potential error conditions, units, data-source limitations, or response details beyond the existence of an output schema.

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 two short sentences with zero filler: the core action comes first, followed by the two most actionable operational facts (input language and output language). Every word earns its place.

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 simple weather-query tool with only one required parameter, a terse description is adequate because the schema documents all parameters and an output schema exists. The only missing context is optional details like units or failure behavior, which are not essential for selecting and invoking the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and each parameter (city, state, country) is already described with examples and defaults. The tool description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 begins with '查询指定城市的当前天气' — a specific verb ('query') and resource ('current weather for specified city') — and adds concrete constraints (English city names, Chinese output). With no sibling tools present, there is no differentiation burden, and an agent can identify the tool's function immediately.

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 states a clear use context: retrieving the current weather for a specified city, with input language and output language expectations. There are no siblings or alternatives to exclude, so the lack of explicit 'when not to use' is not a meaningful gap.

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