get_weather

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that each call makes a live network request, returns a specific structured dict, and handles unresolved locations by returning an empty result or error field instead of raising. This exceeds the transparency expected for a simple tool.

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: the first front-loads the purpose and return format, the second adds behavioral notes. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or redundancy. The structure is clean and scannable.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It specifies the exact return keys with types, explains side effects (network call, internet), and documents error behavior. The presence of an output schema does not reduce the need for description, and this description goes beyond minimum requirements.

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 only parameter 'location', which includes a detailed description and example. The description's reference to a 'named place' adds no new semantic value beyond what the schema already provides. Based on the high coverage rule, a baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and clear resource ('current weather conditions for a named place'), and explicitly defines the return dict with key types, making it distinguishable from sibling tools like scrape_url or get_crypto. It is not a tautology and provides substantive detail.

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 when to use the tool (when real-time weather is needed) and provides important context (live network call, requires internet, returns empty on unresolved location). While it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, the clear context and absence of a weather-like sibling make the usage unambiguous.

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