get_current_weather

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently explains that high-resolution data is used within Austria/Alps coverage, with a fallback to Open-Meteo elsewhere, and that the response identifies the serving source. This adds significant behavioral context beyond the operation itself.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line purpose, a brief paragraph on data source behavior, and an Args section with examples. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is quite complete. It covers the essential behavior (data source selection and response source indication) and usage requirements (geocoding coordinates). The existence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, though it does not specify coordinate system details or unit conventions; these are minor gaps.

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 schema has no parameter descriptions (0% schema coverage), but the description compensates fully by explaining both latitude and longitude as decimal degrees, providing concrete examples (e.g., 48.2208 for Vienna), and instructing the agent to geocode city names itself. This goes beyond the bare schema and gives actionable guidance.

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's function with a specific verb and resource ('Get current weather conditions for a location'). The name 'get_current_weather' aligns with the description and distincts it from sibling tools like hourly and daily forecasts, though not explicitly mentioning them.

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, including instructing users to geocode city names to coordinates themselves and explaining the data source selection behavior (GeoSphere Austria vs Open-Meteo fallback). It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling forecast tools, but the 'current weather' purpose implies its use case relative to forecasts.

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