get_forcast

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it discloses nothing about data source, update frequency, units, error behavior, or return format. A read operation is implied by 'Get' but nothing beyond that is stated.

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 prose is short and front-loaded with the purpose. The Args block is somewhat redundant with the schema, but it does not bloat the description significantly.

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?

For a two-required-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain parameter format and expected return. It covers neither, leaving the agent under-informed before invocation.

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 must compensate, yet it only restates 'Latitude of the location' and 'Longitude of the location' — the same content already in the property titles. No format, range, or coordinate-system details are added.

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 clear verb+resource: 'Get weather forecast for a location.' The scope (single-location forecast) is identifiable, though the sibling get_alerts is not referenced, so an agent must infer that forecasts and alerts are distinct.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is provided. The existence of get_alerts as a sibling goes unmentioned, leaving selection between forecast and alerts entirely to the agent's inference.

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