Find weather stations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the data source (Frost) and hints at the return shape through the example id SN50540, but it does not state ordering by distance, output format, or count semantics.

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 concise, information-dense sentences. The purpose is front-loaded and the actionable downstream usage follows without any padding or repetition.

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 three-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description provides enough to call and use it: location inputs, a station id format, and a downstream tool. It stops short of explicitly stating the list return shape, but that omission is not critical.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little parameter-level detail beyond the schema, but the schema already fully documents latitude, longitude, and count.

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 and resource: 'Find the nearest official weather stations (Frost).' It also gives an example station id and points to get_historical_weather, which clearly differentiates this station-lookup tool from the weather-data sibling tools.

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?

It provides clear context: use this tool to obtain a station id, then pass that id to get_historical_weather. It does not explicitly list exclusions for sibling tools like get_forecast, so it lacks full when-not-to-use guidance.

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