Hae sääennuste (Ilmatieteen laitos)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context: data source, exact forecast variables, and hourly granularity. It does not disclose rate limits or error behavior, but that is less critical given the strong annotation coverage.

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 filler. The first sentence front-loads the core action, resource, and data fields; the second gives a direct usage instruction. Every clause earns its place.

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 read-only tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description conveys the essential behavior: source, data fields, hourly interval, and required inputs. It could mention units (e.g., °C, m/s) or response format, but these are minor omissions for a tool of this complexity.

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%: both 'paikkakunta' and 'tunnit' have meaningful descriptions with examples and constraints. The description only restates the input pattern without adding new parameter-level semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Hakee sääennusteen'), names the resource (Ilmatieteen laitoksen avoin data), and specifies scope (suomalaiselle paikkakunnalle, tunneittain). The included data fields (lämpötila, tuuli, sade, ilmankosteus) make it clearly distinct from sibling tools about procurement, electricity, inflation, or VAT.

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 gives clear instructions on what to provide ('Anna paikkakunnan nimi ja halutessasi tuntimäärä') and the context in which to use it: fetching hourly weather for a Finnish locality. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but none of the sibling tools overlap with weather, so the usage context is sufficient.

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