get_weather

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the description only needs to add context beyond that. It does so by detailing the returned fields and the tool's purpose in climate-skip logic, providing value without contradiction.

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 well-structured with a clear first sentence summarizing the tool, a list of included fields, a usage note, and parameter documentation. It is slightly verbose but front-loaded and efficient.

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 covers parameter semantics, output content, and a use case. Since an output schema exists, return value details are not needed. It lacks error handling or rate limit info, but for a simple weather read tool with good annotations, it is adequately complete.

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 fully compensate. It manually documents all three parameters: location_id (source and UUID format), start (ISO YYYY-MM-DD with default), and end (ISO YYYY-MM-DD with default). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type definitions.

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 ('Return') and resource ('observed + forecast weather readings for a location'), lists the included data elements (temperature, precipitation, humidity, wind, ET), and distinguishes the tool from siblings (no other weather tools). It also notes its use in 'Rachio's climate-skip logic,' adding unique context.

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 explains default date ranges and that location_id comes from a device's location_id field, implying when to use this tool (to get weather data for a device). It does not explicitly exclude scenarios, but with no alternative weather tools, this is sufficient.

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