meteo_current

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the tool is not idempotent and provides live data, plus a fallback behavior on upstream failure. This adds value beyond 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 uses structured XML-like tags for use case, notes, and example, making it easy to parse. It is not overly long but includes some redundancy (e.g., repeating '10-Minuten-Werte' in notes and example). Still well-organized.

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 description covers the use case, important behavioral notes, and provides an example. The tool has an output schema, so return values are documented elsewhere. Missing details like exact number of observations or error handling, but overall sufficient for a simple data retrieval tool.

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 descriptions for station and response_format. The tool description provides an example mapping a station code to a location, adding minimal extra meaning. With schema coverage indicated as 0%, the description does not fully compensate but the schema itself has some descriptions.

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 it retrieves current 10-minute weather measurements from a SwissMetNet station, listing measurement types (temperature, precipitation, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools (forecast, climate normals, etc.) by focusing on current observations.

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 includes a use case tag and important notes (granularity, data source, idempotency) that provide context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or contrast with siblings, though the sibling names imply differentiation.

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