get_weather

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It communicates a read-only retrieval operation and the scope of returned data, but it does not disclose data source assumptions, units, timezone/freshness behavior, or error handling. This is adequate for a simple read tool but not deeply transparent.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence main behavior followed by two focused argument descriptions. Every sentence earns its place, and the behavioral summary is front-loaded.

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 two-parameter weather tool with an output schema available, the description covers the essential call semantics. The main omissions are environmental details like units, timezone, and data freshness, which are not strictly required for 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 0%, and the description fully compensates. It explains that location is a city, region, or country name with concrete examples, and it clarifies forecast_days as a 1-through-7 range, adding real meaning beyond the bare string/integer schema types.

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 and resource: 'Get current conditions and a weather forecast for a place.' It clearly distinguishes the output scope (current conditions plus forecast), though it does not need to differentiate from siblings because none are listed.

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?

Usage context is implied: an agent would use this tool when current weather or a forecast is needed for a location. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, no exclusions, and no edge-case guidance such as ambiguous location handling.

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