assess_weather_risk

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the dependency chain and the exclusive-or input pattern, but it does not state whether the call is read-only, how default thresholds are applied, or what happens to the structured output.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: purpose first, then prerequisites and input constraint. The 'same as check_train_compatibility' reference efficiently avoids repeating sibling documentation.

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 a nested input schema and existing output schema, the description covers the critical cross-tool dependency and the mutually exclusive input requirement. It could add a sentence about weather_points construction or threshold defaults, but the schema already documents those fields.

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 description adds meaning for route/section_ids (exclusive-or, prerequisite via find_route) beyond the schema. However, schema description coverage is reported as 0%, and train, weather_points, and thresholds_override semantics are left to the schema alone.

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 first sentence states a specific operation: turning weather forecasts at points along a route into a structured risk assessment. This clearly separates the tool from the route-finding and compatibility 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 explicitly orders prerequisites: call find_route first for route/section_ids, call the OpenWeather weather tool for forecasts at waypoints, then this tool. It also states the exact-one-of route/section_ids requirement, mirroring check_train_compatibility.

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