get_forecast

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the forecast horizon and accepted input script, but it does not mention possible limitations, error behavior, timezone considerations, or data source. The description is not misleading but is minimal.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the core semantics and the input requirement. There is no redundancy or filler; every part contributes useful information.

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 simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential input and output semantics. Minor gaps like units, city ambiguity, or error behavior are not addressed, but the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema keep these gaps acceptable.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by clarifying that the city value is a name (rather than an ID) and explicitly supports both Cyrillic and Latin script. This goes beyond the bare string type in the schema, though it doesn't specify additional formatting or disambiguation details.

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 states a clear verb and resource: it returns a 7-day forecast for a given city name. It is specific and unambiguous, and the additional script hint (Cyrillic or Latin) further sharpens the purpose.

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?

There are no sibling tools or explicit when/when-not guidance, but the description implies the intended use: whenever a 7-day city forecast is needed. This is adequate for a simple single-purpose tool but leaves the agent to infer the context.

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