get_comfort_index

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It goes beyond a simple action by disclosing the scoring scale, the exact factors included, and the return dictionary structure with overall index, factor breakdown, and recommendation. This gives an agent a strong mental model of how the tool behaves.

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 sections for score interpretation, factors, examples, args, and returns. It is longer than minimal but every section adds value. There is slight redundancy between the opening summary and the 'Factors Included' list, but overall it remains focused and readable.

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 is complete for a 3-parameter tool: it documents all parameters, explains the score range and interpretation, lists contributing factors, provides usage examples, and describes the return value shape. Even without annotations, an agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly and interpret its result.

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 description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so by defining each parameter: latitude and longitude in decimal degrees, and timezone as a timestamp timezone with a default of 'auto'. This adds essential meaning that the schema alone does not provide.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Calculates outdoor activity comfort index (0-100).' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling weather tools by explaining that it combines weather, air quality, UV, and precipitation into a single derived score, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 usage context through the 'planning outdoor activities' framing and concrete example queries like 'Is it good weather for hiking?' This implies when to use it, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it versus sibling tools.

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