get_weather

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden; it does state 'Read-only and idempotent,' which covers the safety profile and is the most important disclosure. It omits unit conventions (Celsius vs Fahrenheit, km/h vs mph), behavior for an unresolvable location string, and whether the Open-Meteo call needs a key or has rate limits — meaningful gaps for a data-fetch 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the capability and returned fields, followed by the usage trigger and the read-only guarantee. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 read tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose, source, returned fields, and usage context adequately. The main omission is the unit system of the returned values, which matters for interpreting the response.

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 100%, so both parameters (location formats, forecast_days range 1-7 with default 3) are already fully documented in the schema. The description only restates 'any city or geographic location worldwide' without adding format nuance, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Get') plus the exact resource ('current weather conditions ... and multi-day daily forecasts'), enumerates the returned fields, and names the upstream provider (Open-Meteo). An agent knows precisely what comes back without opening a schema, and the tool is clearly distinct from unrelated siblings like get_news or web_search.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use when answering weather queries or trip planning.' That is a clear context trigger with no ambiguity about the tool's domain. It does not name exclusions or alternatives, but the sibling set contains no competing weather tool, so there is little to route against.

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