get_current_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 does not mention what the tool returns (though an output schema exists), whether authentication is required, rate limits, error handling, or any side effects. It only states the basic operation. For a read-only tool, it doesn't even state that it is read-only. This is a significant gap given the lack of annotations.

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: one sentence for purpose and a single parameter explanation. It is front-loaded with the main action. The structure is simple and efficient, though the 'Args' formatting is informal. It earns a 4 because it avoids fluff and focuses on the key information.

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 simplicity (one required parameter, output schema present), the description covers the essential operation and parameter format. However, it misses explicit usage guidance versus siblings and does not disclose any behavioral caveats. The description is adequate but not thorough; an agent could use it correctly for a basic call but would lack context on when to choose it over alternatives or what to expect in response (though output schema helps). A 3 reflects this balance.

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 provides no description for the 'city' parameter (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining 'Name of the city' and giving concrete examples ('Toronto' or 'London, Ontario'). This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare 'City' label, and the examples clarify format. The description effectively compensates for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 it 'Get current weather conditions for a city', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings (get_forecast, get_historical) by the word 'current', though it does not explicitly name the alternatives or the exact boundary (e.g., not forecast or historical). That is implied but not explicit, so a 4 is appropriate.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus get_forecast or get_historical. The description only implies 'current' conditions, but does not say 'use this for current weather, use get_forecast for future, use get_historical for past'. No alternatives are mentioned, no when-not conditions are given. The agent must infer from the name, which is insufficient.

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