get_current_weather

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses the data source (AROME/INCA/nowcast), the out-of-coverage notice behavior, and that the response indicates which datasets served it. This goes beyond a simple read-only claim and gives the agent a concrete model of the tool's behavior.

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 compact and front-loaded with the main purpose. The 'Args' section adds example values without redundant explanation, and every sentence contributes useful information. No filler or vague language is present.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with an output schema available, the description covers the essential aspects: geographic coverage, data source, parameter format, and error behavior. It does not need to explain return values because the output schema exists, and the description satisfies all other contextual needs.

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 only lists 'latitude' and 'longitude' with no descriptions, so the description must add meaning. It does so by specifying 'Decimal latitude' and providing concrete examples (48.2208 for Vienna), plus instructing the agent to geocode city names. This compensates fully for the 0% schema coverage.

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 'Get current weather conditions for a location,' clearly naming the verb and resource. Since sibling tools cover hourly forecast, storm outlook, and air quality, this tool is distinctly positioned as the current-conditions option.

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 explicitly states the geographic limitation ('Austria and the Alpine region only') and instructs the agent to geocode city names to coordinates itself. It does not explicitly reference sibling tools, but the scope and parameter requirements give clear guidance on when this tool is appropriate.

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