get_weather

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the core function, failing to mention how location is resolved (e.g., default location, city vs coordinates), what happens if no parameters are provided (all are optional), or any response details.

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, straightforward sentence with no redundant information. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the key action.

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?

The description leaves ambiguity about how to specify a location (given three optional parameters) and what the output looks like, since there is no output schema. It also does not mention if a default location is used when no parameters are provided, which is relevant given sibling tools for default locations.

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%, so all parameters are already described clearly. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, aligning with the baseline score.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current weather conditions') for a location. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_forecast and get_hourly_forecast by focusing on current conditions.

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 word 'current' implies usage for immediate conditions versus forecasts, but the description provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings or how to specify the location. It does not mention prerequisites like searching for a location first.

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