temperature

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does mention that the return is 'Maximum air temperature in Celsius' and provides min/max lead time limits, which is helpful. However, the wording 'Maximum' is confusing and seems to contradict the examples (which show temperatures at specific hours), and it does not describe error handling, data source, or any side effects. This is a partial disclosure with notable gaps, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 well-structured as a docstring with a one-sentence purpose, Args, Returns, and Examples. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses minimal words to convey parameters and return type. Each part earns its place, and the examples are concise. No redundancy or fluff.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 params, returns a float) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it does, parameter semantics, return type, and examples. It explains the lead time offset fully and even notes limits. The main gap is the ambiguous 'Maximum' wording and lack of error handling or data-source context, which slightly incomplete for a fully specified tool. However, it is largely sufficient, so a 4 is suitable.

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?

The schema provides only parameter names and types with no descriptions (0% coverage). The description fully compensates by explaining both parameters in detail: 'location' as a name and 'lead_time_swiss' as an hour offset with explicit min/max values and an explanation of the base time (today at 00:00 Swiss local time). The examples illustrate the mapping between offset and actual time, adding significant semantic value beyond the schema.

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 begins with a clear verb and resource: 'Get air temperature for a location at a specific offset time.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like total_cloud_cover or wind_speed, which address different weather parameters. The purpose is unambiguous and it immediately tells an agent what the tool does.

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 clearly states the tool fetches air temperature, which implicitly indicates when to use it (when temperature is needed), but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or offer alternatives. It provides context on the offset and time zone, but no exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools. This meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' bar, so a 4 is warranted.

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