weather_code_meaning

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'Explain' implies a read-only lookup with no side effects, but it does not address invalid code handling or other behavioral details. The output schema covers return values, reducing the need to describe them.

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 with the core purpose. The trailing 'Args: {"code": int}' partially duplicates the schema and could be omitted, but overall it is efficient.

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 simple one-parameter utility with an output schema, the description is largely complete. It could add valid WMO code ranges or handling for invalid codes, but the essential purpose and argument meaning are present.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It identifies the parameter as a WMO weather code, which adds meaningful domain context beyond the schema's bare 'integer' type, but it does not provide valid ranges or examples.

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 a specific verb ('Explain') and resource ('WMO weather code'), making the tool's purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling weather_forecast, though the resource distinction is evident.

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?

Usage is implied: use this when a WMO weather code needs to be translated into words. There is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus weather_forecast, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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