Get weather forecast data for a location.

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 mentions the data source ('National Weather Service API') but doesn't describe other behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or what specific forecast data is returned. The description is insufficient for a tool with no 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 efficiently structured in two sentences: one stating the tool's purpose and source, and another specifying the parameter format with an example. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words, making it appropriately concise and 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (1 parameter, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is partially complete. It explains the parameter format but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but other gaps remain.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining the 'location' parameter's format: 'latitude,longitude (e.g., '47.7623,-122.2054')'. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't cover all potential parameter nuances (e.g., coordinate ranges).

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 purpose: 'Retrieves weather forecast information from the National Weather Service API for the specified location.' It specifies the verb ('retrieves'), resource ('weather forecast information'), and source ('National Weather Service API'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'get_alerts' or 'get_forecast'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_alerts' or 'get_forecast'. It only states what the tool does without indicating appropriate contexts, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools.

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