enter_weather_forecast_city_israel

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool returns live site suggestions, numbers them from 0, and may surface non-city results in surprising order. It does not mention side effects or prerequisites, but the browser-automation context and sibling names imply them.

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 front-loaded with the action, followed by return behavior and next-step guidance. The example about 'חיפה' earning place because it illustrates an important quirk. No redundant filler is present.

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?

Given one required parameter, an existing output schema, and the explicit pointer to the following sibling tool, the description is nearly complete. It could mention the prerequisite of an already-open forecast page, but that is implied by the sibling open_weather_forecast_israel.

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 add meaning beyond the schema's bare 'City' title. It does so by specifying the city must be in Hebrew and providing concrete examples ('תל אביב', 'חיפה', 'באר שבע'). This is sufficient for a single obvious parameter.

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 specific action ('Type an Israeli city name into the forecast search box') and clearly identifies the tool's output (numbered autocomplete suggestions). It also distinguishes this from the sibling select_weather_forecast_city_israel by instructing the agent to call that tool after reading the list.

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 explicitly explains the workflow: enter a city name, read the returned suggestions, then call select_weather_forecast_city_israel. It also warns that suggestions may include neighborhoods and landmarks, guiding the agent to inspect the list before choosing.

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