get-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 states what the tool does but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what happens with invalid coordinates. For a tool that likely calls an external API, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality. There's no wasted verbiage or redundant information. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating current weather from forecast information for clarity.

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?

Given that an output schema exists (which presumably defines the return structure), the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, for a tool with no annotations and three parameters, the description is minimally adequate—it states the purpose but lacks behavioral context and usage guidance. The existence of an output schema raises the baseline, but gaps remain.

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%, so the schema already fully documents all three parameters with their types, ranges, and descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it merely repeats that coordinates and forecast period are inputs. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 the tool's function: it takes latitude/longitude coordinates and forecast period as input and provides current weather and forecast information for that location. The verb '제공합니다' (provides) is specific, and the resource '날씨와 예보 정보' (weather and forecast information) is well-defined. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'geocode' or 'time', which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'geocode' (which might provide location data) or 'time' (which might provide time-based information), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage context solely from the tool's name and description.

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