weather

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the fields returned (temperature, wind, condition) and that data is live, but says nothing about units (Celsius vs Fahrenheit, km/h vs mph), data freshness/caching, or failure behavior for out-of-range or ocean coordinates — meaningful gaps for a data-fetch tool.

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 with zero filler: it leads with the resource, scopes it with "Live," and enumerates return fields. Nothing is wasted and nothing important is buried.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description steps in to name the return fields, which is exactly the right compensation. The only real omission is measurement units and freshness semantics.

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 both parameters carry explicit range documentation (-90..90, -180..180), so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description only reinforces that lat/lon form a "coordinate" and adds no format, precision, or ordering detail beyond the schema — baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb-phrase and resource ("Live weather for a coordinate") and enumerates what comes back (temperature, wind, condition word). It is immediately distinguishable from the siblings (base_fee, iss, earthquakes, postcard, spend_status, risk_brief), though it doesn't explicitly name them or contrast — unnecessary here since none are weather tools.

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 "Live" implicitly scopes this to current conditions rather than forecasts or historical data, which is the only usage distinction an agent needs. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no note about alternatives for forecasts/history, and no stated prerequisites.

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