get_israel_forecast

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

The description outlines the internal steps (open, search, pick first, return) and implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state it is non-destructive or mention any side effects. Since annotations are absent, the description carries the burden; however, no hidden actions are indicated, so it is reasonably transparent.

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 concise and well-structured. It states the purpose, provides usage guidance, and contrasts with alternatives in just three sentences, with no redundancy.

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 description covers the key behavior (including the 'pick the first match' detail) and when to use it, but does not mention output format details, error handling, or edge cases. For a simple one-parameter tool, it is largely complete, though a bit more context on output would elevate it.

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 only parameter 'city' is mentioned in the description ('search for 'city'') but lacks detailed semantics such as expected format, examples, or case sensitivity. The schema provides no description either, so the parameter meaning is only partially clarified. With one parameter, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 purpose: it performs a complete weather forecast retrieval flow (open site, search, select first match, return cleaned text). It distinguishes itself from the step-by-step sibling tools, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool ('for a normal weather question') and when to use the alternatives (for manual step-by-step browsing). This meets the 'explicit when/when-not' criterion perfectly.

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