check_weather

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys one useful trait ('real-time', i.e. current conditions), but says nothing about units, coverage limits, what happens for an unrecognized location, or whether the call has any cost/auth/rate-limit implications. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence with examples, followed by a compact Args block. It is appropriately sized for a two-parameter tool, though the Args listing partially duplicates what the schema already shows.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is roughly adequate: it says what is returned in detailed mode and what the inputs mean. It omits units, failure behavior for invalid locations, and any description of the default (non-detailed) return shape, leaving noticeable gaps given the absence of annotations and output schema.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it names both parameters and explains that 'detailed' adds feels-like temperature, humidity, wind, and precipitation. That is real meaning beyond the bare boolean in the schema. It stops short of stating the expected format/units for 'location', so not a full 5.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get real-time weather information') plus concrete example locations, so the agent immediately knows what the tool produces. There are no sibling tools to distinguish from, so the ceiling for sibling differentiation cannot be reached, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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 'real-time' wording implies this is for current conditions rather than forecasts or historical data, which is soft usage guidance. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named (there are no siblings, so alternatives are moot).

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