weather_get

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses that no storage, cache, or scheduling occurs, how missing/invalid temperatures are represented, which units are used, and that timestamps follow the location timezone. This gives the agent meaningful expectations about side effects and output behavior.

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 dense but every sentence adds operational value: defaults, target options, output semantics, units, and side-effect disclaimers. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then layers useful details without redundancy.

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?

With no output schema and no required parameters, the description compensates thoroughly by covering output components, units, null behavior, language behavior, and absence of caching/storage. The agent has enough context to call the tool correctly and interpret results safely.

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%, so the description carries the full burden, and it explains all four parameters: alias default behavior, target enum values, include_hourly effect, and language override. It adds practical semantic detail well beyond the bare schema, such as 'initially Tokyo' and that summary labels follow the selected language.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: "Fetch fresh weather for a registered primary or alternate name." It also clarifies that there are target variants (current, today, tomorrow) and distinguishes the tool as one for registered locations, which separates it from the search/list/manage siblings.

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 clearly indicates this tool is for registered primary or alternate names, with alias fallback behavior. It implies that unregistered locations require the sibling tools (weather_search_places or weather_set_location), but it does not explicitly state those alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions.

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