dast_future_weather

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly describes query behavior, the weather dimensions returned, and even flight-impact assessment, while ruling out non-covered areas. It does not mention data source, forecast horizon, or response format, but the stated boundaries are strong and non-contradictory.

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 compact sentences, each earning its place: purpose and scope, parameter normalization rules, and explicit negative scope. The most important information is front-loaded, with no filler or redundant restatement.

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 single-parameter weather query tool with no output schema, this description is sufficiently complete. It covers when to use, how to prepare the parameter, how to resolve ambiguity, what data will be returned, and which scenarios are out of scope.

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 coverage is 100%, so the required 'airport' parameter is already documented. The description adds meaningful semantic guidance beyond the schema by explaining how to map user-provided airport/city names to the three-letter code and how to handle cities with multiple airports.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: '根据机场三字码查询机场未来天气信息'. It enumerates the exact weather attributes covered and explicitly excludes flight-dynamic, delay, ticket, and booking concerns, making it clearly distinguishable from the listed sibling tools.

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?

It states when to use the tool, including user intent examples, and provides concrete conversion rules from airport/city names to the required IATA code. It also explains the multi-airport ambiguity handling and explicitly lists what the tool is NOT for, which is excellent routing guidance.

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