srgssr_weather_current

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is clear. The description adds useful behavioral context: geographic bounds (Latitude 45.8–47.9, Longitude 5.9–10.5) and the fallback behavior when geolocation_id is omitted (resolved from latitude/longitude). This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and structured with clear <use_case>, <important_notes>, and <example> tags. Every sentence contributes value, with no redundant filler.

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 tool's purpose, use cases, geographic restrictions, and provides an example. It also notes the recommended source for geolocation_id. Since an output schema exists, return values are already structured. It lacks explicit mention of alternative forecast tools, but the completeness is adequate for a current-weather lookup.

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?

Schema description coverage is reported as 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides an example (latitude=47.3769, longitude=8.5417) and recommends using geolocation_id from srgssr_weather_search_location, which adds context beyond the schema. However, it doesn't explain units or the meaning of each weather field, leaving the agent partially reliant on schema 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 the tool's purpose: 'Liefert die aktuelle Wettersituation von SRF Meteo für einen Schweizer Standort' with a specific verb 'liefert' and lists the data fields (Temperatur, Wettercode, Wind, Niederschlag, Luftfeuchtigkeit). It distinguishes itself from sibling weather tools by emphasizing 'aktuelle' (current), contrasting with forecast 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?

The description provides a clear use case section (Echtzeit-Wetterabfragen für Outdoor-Aktivitäten etc.) and important notes specifying Swiss-only coordinates and recommending geolocation_id from srgssr_weather_search_location. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions for forecast tools, but the current-vs-forecast distinction is implied.

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