get_current_weather

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return fields (temperature, humidity, precipitation type, wind, precipitation amount), the input format (region name or latitude/longitude), and default behavior when location is omitted. While it doesn't mention units or error behavior, the explicit output list and input flexibility provide solid transparency for a read-only weather tool.

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 succinct and well-structured: a first sentence stating the purpose, a second listing outputs, and a compact Args section. Every sentence adds value, and the format is easy to scan.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter) and has an output schema, so the description need not elaborate return values. It provides enough information about inputs, outputs, and current-weather specificity. The only minor gap is the unspecified default region, but this does not undermine overall completeness.

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 only provides a bare 'location' string with a default. The description adds rich semantics: it explains the parameter accepts a place name (with examples), defaults to a specified region when omitted, and also supports 'latitude,longitude' format. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of parameter description.

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: '지금 관측된 날씨를 조회한다' (queries currently observed weather) and lists the specific data returned. This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like hourly/daily forecasts, which cover different time contexts.

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 context is implied rather than explicit. The description clarifies it provides current observations as opposed to forecasts, but it does not explicitly say 'use this for current weather, use get_daily_forecast for daily predictions.' No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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