list-weather-parameters

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the action and scope ('List all available weather parameters'), which is adequate for a simple read-only list operation, but it does not disclose the return format, whether the list is exhaustive or filtered by endpoint, or any potential constraints. This is minimal but not misleading.

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, front-loaded with the verb 'List' and the object, and contains no unnecessary words. It effectively communicates the tool's purpose without bloat.

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 the low complexity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is mostly complete for an agent to understand the function. However, it lacks any hint about how these parameters relate to sibling tools (e.g., that they are used to construct forecast or observation queries), which would provide fuller context for selection and invocation.

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 input schema has zero parameters, and the description correctly implies none are needed. Per the rubric, 0 parameters earns a baseline of 4. There is nothing to add beyond what the schema already conveys, and the description does not introduce conflicting param expectations.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'all available weather parameters', and adds 'from SMHI' for domain context. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list-weather-stations' (stations) and 'get-weather-forecast' (forecast 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?

The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool compared to alternatives. It simply states what it does, with no mention of related tools like 'get-weather-forecast' or 'get-weather-observations' that would consume these parameters, nor any qualifications like 'use this before querying forecasts.'

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