current_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 reveals the data source (DMI HARMONIE model) and resolution (2km), which is valuable context beyond basic functionality. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, error conditions, authentication needs, or what specific weather data is returned.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place: first establishes purpose and scope, second provides implementation details and parameter guidance. No wasted words, front-loaded with core functionality.

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 single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic context but lacks details about return values, error handling, or performance characteristics. It covers the geographic scope and data source well, but doesn't compensate for the missing output schema.

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 the schema already fully documents the single parameter. The description adds marginal value by reinforcing the acceptable input types (city names, coordinates, postal codes) and providing Danish-specific examples, but doesn't add syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides.

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 with specific verbs ('Get current weather conditions') and resources ('for a location in Denmark'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it's for current conditions only, not comparisons or forecasts. It explicitly mentions the data source (DMI HARMONIE high-resolution model).

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 provides clear context about when to use this tool (for current weather in Denmark) and implies alternatives by specifying 'current' conditions, but doesn't explicitly name sibling tools or state when not to use it. The geographic restriction to Denmark gives useful guidance.

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