get_weather

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

Because no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it discloses almost nothing. The word '查询' implies a read-only retrieval, but the description says nothing about the data source, freshness, or whether the tool returns current conditions or a forecast. No behavior is contradicted; it is simply undisclosed.

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 definition is one short phrase with no filler and is fully front-loaded. However, the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness, so it earns a middling score.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, an agent still needs to know the return shape, such as temperature units, returned fields, and current conditions versus forecast, plus any constraints on the city parameter. None of this information is present, so the definition is insufficient for confident invocation.

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% for the single required parameter 'city', and the description adds no format guidance, such as city name versus city ID, or whether the parameter requires a Chinese or English name. The meaning of 'city' can be inferred from the parameter name alone, which raises the score above the floor but does not compensate for the documented gap.

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 states a specific verb+resource: query city weather. That is clear, and because no sibling tool in the provided list overlaps with weather, no sibling differentiation is required. The description is clear but minimal; it does not say whether it returns the current weather or a forecast.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to use it, or how it relates to alternatives. With no overlapping sibling tools, this omission is less harmful than it would otherwise be, but the description still leaves every usage decision to inference.

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