weather

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Current weather + short forecast' and 'Open-Meteo', but does not explain response format, units (metric/imperial), forecast duration, or any limitations or side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with no structured behavioral metadata.

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, efficiently worded sentence that front-loads the core functionality ('Current weather + short forecast') and the input requirement ('latitude/longitude'). Every word earns its place; no fluff or repetition.

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 simple (two parameters, no output schema, no annotations). The description covers the essential purpose and input, but it omits details that would make it fully self-contained, such as forecast period, units, or data format. It is adequate but with clear gaps.

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 0%, and the description only says 'for a latitude/longitude', which clarifies that 'lat' and 'lon' are coordinates. However, it does not specify valid ranges (e.g., -90 to 90 for lat), required formats, or units. The parameter names are self-explanatory, so the description adds minimal value beyond 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 description clearly states what the tool does: it provides current weather plus a short forecast for a given latitude/longitude. It also names the data source (Open-Meteo), making the purpose unambiguous. Siblings are unrelated, so there is no confusion.

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 when to use the tool (when weather data is needed), but it does not explicitly state usage context or mention alternatives. Since all sibling tools are clearly unrelated, the absence of explicit alternatives is not a major drawback, but the guidance is still minimal.

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