Get current weather

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar for the description is lower. The description adds valuable context beyond those flags: results are model-based current conditions, the tool is not a general URL fetcher, and resolved locations can be ambiguous. It does not mention potential rate limits or data freshness, but those are minor given the strong annotation coverage.

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 two sentences with no filler: the core action and scope are front-loaded, exclusions are stated compactly, and the critical usage warning about ambiguous place names is included. Every sentence earns its place.

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 output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. The description covers purpose, exclusions, and the key ambiguity caveat, and the annotations plus schema provide the rest. There are no sibling tools to distinguish, so nothing material is missing.

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 schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description reinforces that location is city/postal-code-like text but adds no new parameter-level detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 uses a specific verb ('Resolve') with a clear resource ('city or postal-code-like location') and states the outcome: return read-only, model-based current conditions. It also explicitly delimits the tool's scope by listing what it does not provide (forecasts, alerts, advice, or URL content), which removes ambiguity even without 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?

The description provides explicit when-not-to-use guidance ('does not provide forecasts, alerts, advice, or arbitrary URL content') and actionable advice for the main use case ('Always inspect resolved_location because place names can be ambiguous'). This is sufficient routing guidance given there are no sibling tools.

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