zurich_weather_live

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by specifying that data is updated hourly, naming the data source (UGZ), listing specific stations, and detailing the return parameters. This provides behavioral context 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 is concise: two clear sentences stating purpose and data source, followed by a bullet list of stations and return fields. Every part is relevant and well-structured.

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, data source, stations, and return values. Given the presence of an output schema and annotations, the description is fairly complete. However, it lacks mention of filtering capabilities or update frequency details, leaving minor gaps.

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 includes detailed descriptions for all parameters (limit, station, parameter), including possible values and defaults. The description lists stations and parameters informally but does not add semantic meaning beyond the schema. With high schema coverage, 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 explicitly states it delivers weather data from UGZ stations, lists the stations, and mentions the returned fields (temperature, humidity, pressure, rain duration). It is specific and clearly differentiates from generic 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose (hourly weather data) and data source, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like zurich_air_quality or zurich_water_weather. The usage context is implied but not delineated.

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