Query City Weather

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it discloses the upstream data source per country (NWS, Met Office DataHub, MSC GeoMet), the auth prerequisite for the UK (METOFFICE_API_KEY), and which providers need no key. It does not mention rate limits, failure behavior, or pagination, so it stops short of full behavioral 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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then a compact per-country breakdown where each line earns its place. No redundancy or filler.

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 annotations, the description must carry the definition, and it covers coverage area, data sources, auth needs, and roughly what is returned (conditions, forecast, alerts). It could be slightly more complete by describing the response shape or error cases, but nothing essential for a correct call 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 coverage is 100%, and both parameters (city, country enum with auto-detection and ambiguity notes) are fully documented in the schema itself. The description restates country auto-detection and the ambiguous-city case but adds no syntax or format detail beyond structured data, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get current weather conditions and forecast') with an explicit geographic scope (US, UK, or Canada). It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like query_air_quality or query_water without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear context for how the tool behaves per country and how to disambiguate, and explicitly notes the UK path requires METOFFICE_API_KEY. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over an alternative (e.g., air quality or UK dataset search), so the routing guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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