get_weather

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the data source (NWS), the US-only scope, and that station coverage is conditional ('where a state publishes them'), which tells an agent to expect gaps. It stops short of stating failure behavior for non-US places or any rate limits.

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 core capability is front-loaded in one sentence with zero filler. The second paragraph is a useful glossary for the non-obvious term 'road-weather station', though it reads as a fragment and could be folded into the first sentence.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does name the three return components (forecast, alerts, stations) plus which measurements stations carry, which is enough for an agent to know what to expect. Station field structure and forecast granularity are left unstated, a minor gap for a zero-required-parameter read tool.

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% – hours, place, and center are all documented in the schema, including the place-vs-center precedence and the saved-place handling. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names the specific resource and outputs: hourly NWS forecast, active alerts, and nearby road-weather stations, scoped to any US place, plus hour-by-hour driving hazard flags. The resource is clearly distinct from traffic/incident siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly for contrast.

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 'with driving hazards flagged by hour' phrasing implies a driving-trip use case, and 'any US place' implies the boundary condition. But it never states when to prefer this over get_traffic, plan_trip, or best_time_to_go, nor any exclusions beyond the US scope.

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