srgssr_weather_current

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent behavior. The description adds constraints: only Swiss coordinates (lat 45.8–47.9, lon 5.9–10.5) and recommendation to use geolocation_id. No contradictions or missing behavioral traits.

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 concise, uses structured tags (use_case, important_notes, example) for readability, and front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence adds value, though slightly verbose with example.

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 existence of an output schema, the description need not detail return values. It covers input constraints, recommended usage, and provides an example. Completeness is adequate for a simple current-weather 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 already provides descriptions for each parameter (latitude, longitude, geolocation_id). The main description restates coordinate bounds and the geolocation_id recommendation, adding minimal extra value beyond schema.

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 data for Swiss locations, listing specific elements (temperature, weather code, wind, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling forecast tools by specifying 'aktuelles Wetter' (current weather).

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 a use_case tag with typical scenarios (outdoor activities, traffic, energy) and important_notes specifying valid coordinate bounds and recommending geolocation_id. It does not explicitly exclude forecasts, but sibling names imply those are separate tools.

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