get_weather

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

With no annotations, the description is the sole behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' implies a read operation, but nothing describes the response format, units, error behavior, or any side effects. Minimal transparency beyond the name itself.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core operation with zero redundancy. Appropriate for the tool's simplicity.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is minimal but still incomplete: it fails to hint at what 'current weather' includes (temperature, conditions, etc.), leaving the agent to guess at the return shape. A short list of typical response fields would make it 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?

The input schema fully describes the single 'city' parameter (100% coverage) with type and examples. The description's 'given city' repeats schema content, adding no new semantic information, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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' with resource 'current weather' and scope 'for a given city'. It unambiguously states the tool's function. With no sibling tools, differentiation is moot.

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: when current weather for a city is needed. However, it offers no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternative selection guidance, relying entirely on the self-evident purpose.

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