get_weather

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the data returned (temperature, rain, wind) and the geographical restriction (Île-de-France). It does not contradict annotations and provides useful operational detail.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose (current weather and hourly forecast) and includes key data types and scope. There is no wasted wording or redundant information.

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?

Given the moderate complexity (3 params, 1 required), an existing output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is sufficiently complete. It states what data is returned and the geographical scope. It does not mention units or timezone, but the schema covers start_time format and the output schema likely defines return structure, so nothing critical is missing.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters, so the schema already documents location, hours, and start_time. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides; it only mentions 'a place' which maps to location. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and an hourly forecast with specific data (temperature, rain, wind) for a place in Île-de-France. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like compare_routes (routes), find_place (place lookup), and get_api_usage (API usage) by resource and scope. The verb is implied by the tool name but the description is specific about what it provides.

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 context: it is for weather in Île-de-France. While it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the sibling tools are clearly different domains, so an agent can infer when to use this tool. There is no contradictory guidance, and the scope is explicit.

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