flw

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It provides the response keys and a request example, giving insight into output format, but does not disclose authentication, rate limits, or side effects. For a read-only API, this is adequate but leaves gaps.

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 structured with sections but includes a full URL example and a list of response keys, making it slightly verbose. It could be more concise by focusing on the tool's purpose rather than API details.

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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter, and the description covers input and output adequately. However, it lacks explanation of how this tool relates to siblings or any preconditions, leaving the agent without full context for selection.

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 describes the 'lang' parameter minimally, but the description lists the allowed values ('en', 'tc', 'sc'), which are not in the schema's enum. This adds critical semantic information beyond what the schema provides.

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 begins with 'Local Weather Forecast' and the tool name 'flw' suggests forecast. It clearly indicates the tool returns a local weather forecast, but lacks an explicit verb like 'get' and does not differentiate from sibling weather tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the 19 sibling weather tools. The description is purely technical without any usage context.

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