get_weather

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses a formatting convention (wind speed in km/h), which is real behavioral detail, but it says nothing about whether the call is read-only, whether results are cached, or what caveats apply to location resolution. Since an output schema exists, the absence of return-value detail is acceptable.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the unit detail. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the km/h note is a helpful extra. However, for a two-parameter tool with zero schema coverage and no annotations, leaving both the location format and the unit parameter's allowed values unaddressed is a real gap.

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 0%, so neither parameter is documented in the schema and the description must compensate. It clarifies only that wind speed is in km/h; it never explains what format 'location' accepts or what values 'unit' accepts and whether it applies to temperature, wind, or both. The unit param (default celsius) is effectively undocumented.

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 states a specific verb+resource ("Get current weather for a place"), and the word "current" implicitly separates it from the get_forecast sibling. It stops short of naming get_forecast, so the differentiation relies on inference rather than an explicit contrast.

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 word "current" implies the right context (now, not a future outlook), which is the only usage guidance present. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_forecast, and no prerequisites or exclusions are described.

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