get_weather

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

The description discloses that the data is a model forecast and not a station reading, and notes that the response will indicate this. It does not mention side effects or read-only nature, but for a simple 'get' tool this is adequate. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden and covers the most important behavioral aspect.

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 concise sentences with no redundancy or fluff. It efficiently conveys the core purpose, output contents, a clarifying note, and usage guidance without unnecessary words.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description explicitly lists the output fields (temperature, feels-like, humidity, precipitation, wind speed/gusts, daily highs/lows, precipitation probability). This gives a comprehensive understanding of what to expect, and the geocode note provides necessary context for input handling.

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 already provides full descriptions for lat, lon, and days (coverage 100%). The tool description repeats these descriptions without adding extra meaning such as units or default behavior beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool provides current weather and a 7-day forecast for coordinates, and explicitly distinguishes it from station readings and directs users to geocode for place names. This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 explicitly instructs to use the geocode tool first when a place name is provided instead of coordinates, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance. No other weather siblings exist, so no alternative is needed.

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