get_weather

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which covers safety traits. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: IP-based auto-detection of location and the inclusion of clothing suggestions, which are not inferable from the 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary function, then adds location handling details. Every sentence contributes meaning without redundancy.

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 read-only weather tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does, how location is determined, and what it returns (conditions and suggestions). No critical information is missing for selection and 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?

The schema describes both parameters with 100% coverage, including the enum for units and the default behavior for location. The description adds examples (e.g., 'Tokyo' or 'London, UK') and reinforces the auto-detect aspect, providing extra clarity beyond the schema.

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 'returns current weather conditions and clothing suggestions,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_temperature_sensors (hardware temperature) by explicitly focusing on weather and clothing.

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 clear usage context: it auto-detects location from IP if none is given, and instructs to pass a city name for a specific location. It does not explicitly rule out alternatives, but there are no weather-related sibling tools, making the context sufficient.

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