swiss_weather_search_meteoswiss

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that this is a dataset search (not live API queries yet) and that individual API queries are planned for Q2 2026, which is useful context. However, it does not describe the return format, pagination, rate limits, or whether results are just metadata/dataset listings versus actual data values. For a search tool with zero annotations, more behavioral disclosure is needed.

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 waste. The temporal context (May 2025 opening, Q2 2026 plans) is efficiently conveyed. Could arguably be more informative while staying concise, but the structure is appropriate for the content provided.

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?

This is a search tool with a 2-parameter schema, no output schema, and no annotations. The description partially explains the data source and its temporal limitation but fails to describe what results look like (dataset metadata vs actual weather data), how to interpret responses, or any caveats about the search functionality. Given zero annotations and no output schema, the description should do significantly more work.

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 50%, and the description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. The schema documents the 'query' parameter with examples, and 'rows' with a default of 10. The description does not elaborate on what querying returns, how rows behaves, or whether there are pagination nuances. The description adds no value over the schema here.

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 verb (search), resource (MeteoSwiss open datasets), and identifies MeteoSwiss as official Swiss meteorology. It distinguishes from siblings by the specific data source (MeteoSwiss OGD, opened May 2025). However, there is no explicit differentiation from similar search tools like swiss_health_search_datasets, swiss_energy_search_datasets, or swiss_statistics_search beyond the meteorology context.

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 mentions the data was opened since May 2025 and notes individual API queries are planned for Q2 2026, which hints at limitations but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternative sibling tools are named. The agent gets no clear direction on when to choose this over the many other Swiss data search tools.

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