Get current weather observations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden; it does add real value by saying results are normalized into a structured schema rather than raw METAR text. However it says nothing about error behavior for invalid or unknown ICAO codes, missing/stale observations, or rate limits, which matters for a data-fetch tool. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler: what it returns, when to use it, and which sibling to use instead. The routing information is front-loaded rather than buried.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, scope, and sibling routing, which is most of what an agent needs to call it correctly. What's missing is any hint about the returned condition fields or how failures (unknown station, no current observation) surface, though the absence of an output schema limits how much is required.

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% and the single 'stations' parameter is fully documented in the schema (ICAO pattern, max 20). The description's 'one or more airports' merely restates the array semantics already in the schema, adding no new syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Current METAR observations'), the scope ('one or more airports'), and the output form ('normalized into a structured schema'). It also explicitly separates itself from the sibling assess_conditions, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

Gives both a positive condition ('when you need the raw current conditions') and an explicit alternative with the condition that selects it ('if you need a judgment about whether conditions are flyable, use assess_conditions instead'). Nothing about the raw-vs-interpreted split is left to inference.

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