viewing_conditions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it is a noun-phrase tagline rather than an operational statement. It names three condition factors but does not say whether it returns current conditions, how it handles absent lat/lon values, whether it is read-only, or what the output actually looks like.

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 concise clause with the core content (cloud, visibility, daylight) front-loaded and the evaluative purpose after the dash. Every word contributes and there is no repetition of schema or annotation information.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the definition is too thin: it omits the role of the optional coordinates, the temporal scope, and the return format. It is evocative but leaves important selection and invocation details unstated.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it never mentions lat or lon. The parameter names are self-explanatory, yet the optional/default-null behavior and how missing coordinates are interpreted remain undocumented.

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 identifies the resource (cloud, visibility, daylight) and the intended decision point via "whether it's worth looking up at all," making it distinct from the aircraft-focused sibling tools. It would reach 5 with an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'checks'.

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 phrase "whether it's worth looking up at all" implies the tool is for deciding if sky conditions are good for observation, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or comparisons to alternatives. The agent must infer when to use it among the sibling tools.

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