Intraday View

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses an important trait: the chart is derived from the existing current-conditions response and requires no additional API call. It does not discuss failure modes or permissions, but for a read-only chart view these are relatively minor gaps.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds valuable context about the data source and the lack of an extra API call.

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 simple view tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential facts: what is shown, the chart type, the data source, and the network behavior. It does not address edge cases such as missing current-conditions data, but the low complexity and defaults make it reasonably 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?

The description does not mention either parameter. The schema documents 'city' with examples, but 'lang' is only given a default of 'de' with no explanation. With 50% schema coverage and no parameter guidance in the description, an agent gets insufficient help for the 'lang' 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 states a specific action ('Show'), a specific resource ('today's water temperature'), and a specific presentation ('intraday area chart'). It further distinguishes itself from historical/forecast siblings by explaining that it uses 'past readings from the current-conditions response' rather than making a separate historical request.

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 gives clear context: this is for visualizing today's temperature evolution, and it explicitly notes 'no extra API call required,' which tells an agent this is a lightweight alternative to fetching historical data. It does not name specific sibling tools or state explicit exclusions, but the intended usage is clear.

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