temperature_card

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'interactive' but does not explain interactivity, data freshness, side effects, or any behavioral specifics beyond the visual output.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The key purpose and content are front-loaded, making it easy for an AI agent to quickly understand the tool's core function.

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?

Description covers the main output elements (temperature, forecast, description) but lacks context on how it fits among many sibling tools. For a simple tool with one optional param, it is adequate but could be more complete about use case compared to forecast_view or get_forecasts.

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?

Input schema has one optional string parameter 'city' with description listing examples. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add extra semantic information beyond the schema.

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 shows an interactive Aare water temperature card with current temperature, 2-hour forecast trend, and Swiss German description. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_current_temperature (raw data) and flow_card (different focus) by emphasizing the card presentation and specific content.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_current_temperature for raw data, forecast_view for longer forecasts). The description only states what it does, not when it is appropriate.

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