forecast

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds a useful non-obvious behavior: out-of-range days are clamped to the bounds rather than treated as errors. It does not cover invalid city behavior or errors, but this is a low-risk read-style tool and the main complexity is disclosed.

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 compact, front-loaded with the purpose, and uses a clean Args block. Every sentence contributes either to selecting the tool or calling it correctly, with no filler.

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 an output schema and only two self-explanatory parameters, the description is largely sufficient for a correct call. The main missing piece is explicit guidance about choosing between forecast and current_weather, which remains implicit rather than stated.

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 compensates by explaining both parameters: city is the populated place name, and days controls how many days to return with the 1–7 range. It adds the clamping behavior, which the schema cannot express. The default value is left to the schema, which is acceptable.

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 returns a weather forecast for multiple upcoming days, which identifies the resource and the specific purpose. It also differentiates it from current_weather by the 'несколько дней' framing, though it does not explicitly name the sibling.

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 multi-day forecast purpose and 1–7 day range imply when it should be used, especially compared to current_weather. However, the description never explicitly says 'use current_weather for current conditions' or states when forecast should not be used, leaving the choice to inference.

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