enter_weather_forecast_city_israel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the literal action and does not disclose prerequisites (e.g., needing the page open), side effects (e.g., whether typing submits or just fills the box), or the relationship to other tools. This is minimal disclosure beyond the action itself.

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 plus an Args block, efficiently front-loaded with the main action. It uses no unnecessary words and clearly organizes the parameter information. This is appropriately sized and structured.

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 and has an output schema, so return values are not required. However, the description omits the tool's role in the broader workflow—it doesn't indicate that the page must be open first or that a subsequent select action may be needed. Given the sibling tools, this lack of context makes it only minimally complete.

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 only defines city_name as a string with no description (schema coverage 0%). The description adds essential meaning by specifying 'City name in Hebrew or English' and providing concrete examples like 'ירושלים', 'חיפה', 'Tel Aviv'. This meaningfully compensates for the schema's lack of detail, though it could further clarify accepted formats.

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 action: 'Type an Israeli city name into the weather2day forecast search box.' It uses a specific verb (type) and resource (search box), and it distinguishes itself from siblings like 'select' by focusing on the typing action. This meets the criteria for a specific verb+resource with clear scope.

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, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It simply describes the action without situating it in the workflow with siblings like open or select, leaving the agent to infer usage. This falls under 'no guidance' on the scale.

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