amap_weather

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the tool returns real-time or forecast weather data, which is useful behavioral information. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or safe, nor does it mention any rate limits or response characteristics. For a simple query tool, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with '天气查询' (weather query) and immediately followed by the operative detail. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition of schema content.

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?

The tool is simple with two parameters and no output schema. The description covers the core functionality (real-time or forecast weather for a specified city) and is adequate for an agent to select and invoke it. It lacks explicit mention of return values or units, but given the tool's simplicity and full schema coverage, this is a minor gap. A score of 4 reflects that the description is nearly complete for the tool's complexity.

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 100% coverage with descriptions for both 'city' and 'extensions'. The description adds marginal value by echoing the real-time vs forecast distinction already present in the schema, but it does not provide any additional parameter-level details or examples beyond what the schema offers. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 a specific verb ('查询' / query) and resource (weather for a specified city), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on weather rather than directions, geocoding, or POI search. It also specifies the scope (real-time or future forecast), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 clear context: it is for querying weather for a city. While it does not explicitly list when not to use it or mention alternatives, the sibling set is entirely non-weather, so the usage context is unambiguous. However, it lacks explicit guidance on choosing this tool over another, stopping short of a 5.

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