get_weather

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It states the tool returns current conditions and a forecast, which is useful, but it does not explain units, timezone behavior, error handling, or whether the data is real-time or cached. For a simple read-only tool this is moderate transparency, but not complete.

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 short and informative, leading with the main purpose and then documenting parameters. It is concise but not overly sparse, though the parameter details are somewhat redundant with what a good schema could provide.

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 two-parameter weather tool with an output schema, the description covers the core functionality and parameter semantics well. It does not specify forecast units, date formats, or error behavior, but these are less critical given the simplicity of the tool and the presence of an output 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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: location expects a city, region, or country name, and forecast_days specifies the number of forecast days (1-7). This added meaning goes well beyond the raw parameter names and types.

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 retrieves current weather conditions and a forecast for a location, with a specific verb and resource. The tool name and description align, and there are no sibling tools to confuse it with.

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 gives a clear sense of when to use the tool—whenever weather data is needed—but provides no explicit guidance on alternatives or exclusion criteria. Since there are no sibling tools, some implied usage is acceptable, but the description could still clarify typical use cases or limitations.

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