get_weather

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the data source (気象庁API), the output includes weather/temperature and heatstroke cautions, which adds transparency. However, it leaves the 'multilingual AI advice' behavior vague and does not disclose potential issues like rate limits or errors.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the main purpose and adds relevant details about the source and special warning. There is no wasted verbiage or unnecessary repetition.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, source, and one notable feature. However, it does not explain what happens when area_name is omitted, nor does it elaborate on the multilingual advice, leaving some context incomplete.

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 only parameter, area_name, is fully documented in the schema with a description and examples, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying that weather is fetched for a given location, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves weather and temperature data from the JMA API and includes multilingual AI advice with heatstroke warnings. It is specific about the verb (取得) and resource (weather), and while it doesn't explicitly reference sibling tools, the transit-focused siblings are clearly distinct from weather retrieval.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to avoid it, any prerequisites, or how it differs from sibling transit tools in terms of use cases.

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