Get weather (mock)

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the responsibility for conveying behavior. It indicates the tool returns mock data and thereby implies no real-world side effects, but it does not explicitly state whether it is read-only, whether it can fail, or any other behavioral constraints. The term 'mock' offers some transparency but could be more detailed.

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 a single concise sentence that conveys the essential purpose without any redundant information. It is well-structured and to the point, making it easy for an agent to process quickly.

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 mock weather tool, the description provides enough context to understand its function and the required parameter. It does not specify the output format or any error behavior, but given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema, the missing details are not critical. Slightly more detail would make it fully complete.

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 provides no description for the 'city' parameter, but the tool description says 'for a given city', which clarifies that the parameter represents a location. This gives partial meaning, but does not elaborate on expected format, examples, or limits. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description partially compensates but not fully.

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's purpose: returning a mock weather report for a specified city. The verb 'returns' and the resource 'weather report' are explicit, and the inclusion of 'mock' clarifies the nature of the data. It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like multiply or add.

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 usage for obtaining weather data, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over others. However, given the siblings are unrelated operations (arithmetic and note-saving), the appropriate context is obvious. A small explicit note could improve clarity, but it is not necessary.

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