Get Current Weather

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Uses the free Open-Meteo API' which hints at an external dependency, but it does not disclose potential failures (e.g., invalid location), rate limits, response structure, or whether it is a read-only operation. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 two sentences with zero fluff. The core purpose and input format are front-loaded, and the API note is brief. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is easy to scan.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the what, the input, and the external API. However, since there is no output schema, the description should at least hint at what the response contains (e.g., temperature, conditions) or error behavior. This is missing, so the description is functional but not fully complete for an agent deciding how to interpret the result.

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 100% for the single 'location' parameter, and the schema already describes it as 'City or place name to look up'. The description adds helpful examples ('Muzaffarnagar', 'Tokyo, Japan') and clarifies it's live weather, but these are incremental, not substantive additions. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema already handles parameter semantics.

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 states a specific verb ('get') and resource ('current live weather') along with the input type (city or place name). The examples clarify the expected input format, and the sibling tools (calculate, notes, time) are clearly unrelated, so this tool is easily distinguished without needing to inspect schemas.

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 implies when to use this tool (whenever current weather is needed) and provides context for the input format. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, which is acceptable given the sibling list contains no weather-related alternatives. It lacks explicit when-not guidance, so a 4 is appropriate.

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