Get Current Weather

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the agent knows this is a safe, non-mutating read. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond repeating 'using coordinates', which is already in the schema. It does not disclose anything like data source, units, or error behavior.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that is concise and contains no filler. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it highly 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 tool with only two parameters, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description is complete enough. It does not need to explain return values because the output schema exists. The description adequately covers the tool's scope without requiring additional details.

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% with each parameter having a clear description ('Latitude coordinate' and 'Longitude coordinate'). The description only says 'using coordinates', which adds no new meaning beyond schema. Since schema covers semantics fully, the baseline 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's purpose: 'Get current weather conditions for a location using coordinates.' It specifies the verb (get), resource (weather conditions), and scope (current, location-based), making it unambiguous and distinguishable from forecast tools by the word 'current'.

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 implies usage for current weather via 'current', but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_daily_forecast or provide when-to-use/not-use guidance. No alternatives are named, so the usage context is only implied, not explicit.

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