get_weather

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it retrieves current weather information but doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, error conditions, or what format the returned string contains. The description is minimal and lacks important behavioral context.

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 appropriately concise with clear sections (Args, Returns). The first sentence states the purpose directly, and the parameter documentation is efficiently presented. There's minimal wasted text.

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 has an output schema (though not shown here), the description doesn't need to explain return values in detail. However, for a tool with no annotations and only basic parameter documentation, the description could provide more context about what weather information is included, potential errors, or usage limitations to be fully complete.

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 description adds significant value beyond the input schema. While the schema only shows 'city' as a string parameter with a default, the description provides a specific list of valid cities (서울, 부산, 인천, 대구, 대전, 광주, 울산, 제주) and clarifies it's a selection from this set. This compensates well for the 0% schema description coverage.

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: '특정 도시의 현재 날씨 정보를 가져옵니다' (Get current weather information for a specific city). It specifies the verb '가져옵니다' (get) and resource '날씨 정보' (weather information), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'list_cities' tool.

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 the sibling 'list_cities' tool. It doesn't mention prerequisites, alternatives, or contextual usage scenarios beyond the basic function.

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