zurich_weather_live

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by specifying the data source (UGZ), update frequency (hourly), and list of stations, which provides behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradiction.

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: three sentences covering purpose, data source, stations, and return values. It is front-loaded with the main action and efficiently 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?

Given the existence of an output schema (context indicates yes) and annotations covering safety, the description is complete enough. It mentions return values (temperature, humidity, etc.) and station list, adequately complementing the schema.

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 each parameter (limit, format, station, parameter), achieving high schema description coverage. The description does not add further parameter details, so 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 clearly states the tool 'liefert stündlich aktualisierte Wetterdaten der UGZ-Messstationen Zürich', specifying the verb 'delivers', resource (weather data), and scope (hourly, from specific stations). It distinguishes itself from siblings like zurich_air_quality and zurich_water_weather by focusing on live weather data from UGZ stations.

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 implies the tool is for live weather data but does not explicitly compare with sibling tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance. Given the existence of weather-related siblings (e.g., zurich_air_quality, zurich_water_weather), more explicit distinction would be helpful.

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