Get current weather

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and openWorld, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that a local time for the place is returned, which is genuinely useful context, but it says nothing about latency, rate limits, or data freshness for an open-world remote lookup.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the output contract and ending with the prerequisite. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant with the title or schema.

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 no output schema, the description earns its keep by enumerating the returned fields and disclosing that local time is included. The only shortfall is not routing the agent away from this tool toward get_forecast when a future window is needed.

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% — latitude/longitude have ranges and examples, and both unit params are enums with defaults documented inline. The description adds only the indirect hint that coordinates typically originate from search_locations; it gives no additional meaning about units or coordinate conventions, 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?

States a specific verb+resource (current conditions) and enumerates what is returned (temperature, feels-like, humidity, precipitation, weather code, wind, day/night) plus the local time. The word 'current' implicitly contrasts with get_forecast, but that sibling is never named, so differentiation from it relies on the agent's inference.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite chain: 'Use search_locations first if you only have a place name,' which resolves the most likely failure mode (calling with a name instead of coordinates). It does not state when to prefer get_forecast over this tool, which is the remaining gap.

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