get_climate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral transparency. It mentions the ODbL license but does not disclose important traits like whether the operation is read-only, error handling for invalid course_id, rate limits, or data freshness. This leaves significant ambiguity for the agent.

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 sentence plus a license note, with zero wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter.

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?

Given no output schema, the description is minimal: it lists the data types but does not explain the format or units of 'monthly climate normals' or what 'playability' means. It is adequate but not fully complete for an agent to understand the expected return structure.

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 coverage is 100% with a clear description for course_id ('Course UUID'). The description adds no further meaning beyond the schema, such as where to obtain the UUID or any constraints. Baseline score of 3 as schema already documents the parameter.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'monthly climate normals for a course', listing specific data fields (temperature, precipitation, playability). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_course and get_nearby by focusing solely on climate data.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_course for general course info or search_courses for finding courses. The description lacks any when-to-use or when-not-to-use hints.

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