get_weather

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action ('gets and returns') without mentioning critical traits like data sources, accuracy, rate limits, error handling, or authentication needs. This is insufficient for a tool with no 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?

The description is concise and front-loaded in a single sentence, with no wasted words. However, it's slightly under-specified, as more detail could improve clarity without sacrificing brevity. It efficiently states the core function but lacks depth.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (simple but with no annotations or output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error cases, or behavioral context, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively beyond basic invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'city' implicitly but adds no meaning beyond what the schema title provides (e.g., format, examples, constraints). With 1 parameter and no schema descriptions, this leaves significant gaps.

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 states the tool's purpose ('gets and returns the weather of the city'), which is clear but vague. It specifies the action (gets/returns) and resource (weather), but doesn't differentiate from siblings or provide specific scope details like timeframe or data types. This is adequate but lacks precision.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools (add, fetch_news_articles) or contextual factors like when weather data is needed versus other data sources. Usage is implied by the purpose but not explicitly stated.

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