Getweatherbylocation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the backing service (Open-Meteo API) and the key default ('if no date is provided, query today and tomorrow'), but says nothing about error handling, units returned, timezone handling, or 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?

A single compact sentence pair that is front-loaded with the core purpose followed by the default-date rule. The leading '天气信息查询 -' label is mildly redundant with the tool name but costs little.

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?

There is no output schema, no annotations, and no per-parameter documentation, so the description must do more. The default-date rule is the most valuable missing piece it supplies, but date format, coordinate validity, and result shape remain unspecified.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the semantics of omitting start_date/end_date (defaults to today and tomorrow), which covers two of four parameters meaningfully, but it omits date string format, allowed ranges, and any constraint on latitude/longitude.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('查询天气信息' via '经纬度'), which is clearly distinct from a generic weather tool. However, it never names or contrasts with the obvious sibling getWeatherByCity, so an agent must infer the coordinate-vs-city distinction itself.

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?

Usage is implied by the input (call it when you have latitude/longitude), and the default date behavior is noted, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of when to prefer getWeatherByCity or other siblings. The alternative-based routing is left entirely to inference.

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