get_weather

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys the read-only nature of the operation and the high-level output (current conditions and forecast), but it does not mention units, error handling, or what the forecast includes, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 two sentences plus a two-item Args list. The main purpose is front-loaded, and every line adds either scope or parameter detail, with no filler.

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?

With only two parameters, one of which has a default, and an output schema present, the description covers the necessary input semantics and high-level behavior. Gaps like unit conventions are minor given the output schema, so the description is nearly complete.

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 0%, yet the description's Args section fully compensates: it defines 'location' as a city, region, or country with examples, and 'forecast_days' as a range from 1 through 7. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema properties.

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 opens with 'Get current conditions and a weather forecast for a place,' which names a specific action (get) and resource (conditions + forecast). This clearly distinguishes the tool's function even in the absence of siblings.

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 communicates that the tool is for retrieving weather data for a location, and the Args section explains how to supply the location and optional forecast length. Since there are no sibling tools, explicit when-not or alternative guidance is unnecessary; the implied 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.