weather_history_hours

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention the 'up to 24 hours' limitation, which is useful, but it fails to disclose pagination behavior, response format, required authentication, or any other operational constraints. The API link is a pointer, not a substitute for inline transparency.

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 a single sentence with a documentation link, making it concise and front-loaded. There is no redundant filler, though the link is not described in text. It is efficient but slightly too sparse to carry the necessary information.

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?

Given the tool has seven parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is not complete enough for an agent to use confidently. It provides a broad summary and a link, but leaves out essential operational details like required parameters, pagination, and return value structure.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the seven parameters beyond implying that 'hours' is capped at 24. It does not mention latitude/longitude, pageToken, unitsSystem, or languageCode, so an agent cannot determine how to fill these parameters from the description alone.

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 identifies the resource as historical hourly weather data limited to 24 hours, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like weather_forecast_hours and weather_current_conditions. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'retrieve' or 'get', making it slightly less direct.

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 term 'historical' implicitly signals this is for past weather data rather than forecasts or current conditions, but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. The sibling tool names help, but the description itself does not provide concrete usage direction.

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