get_forecast

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return type ('all time series data') and coverage area, but omits details like units, error handling, or what 'detailed parameters' specifically include. Some behavior is transparent, but significant gaps remain.

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 succinct, front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence adds value: purpose, output nature, and coverage. There is no fluff or redundancy beyond minor overlap between 'full ~10-day' and 'all time series data'.

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 tool has a simple schema with only two parameters and no output schema, so the description must convey the essential return behavior. It explains the forecast duration, that it returns comprehensive time series data, and the geographic coverage. This is largely sufficient for a weather forecast tool, though specifics like units or data fields would enhance completeness.

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 100%, with both latitude and longitude having clear descriptions of their ranges. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 gets a full ~10-day weather forecast for a location, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('weather forecast'). It also distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying 'full' and 'all time series data', which contrasts with current, hourly, and daily summary tools.

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 implies usage for when a complete forecast is needed and provides coverage constraints, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. The sibling names are not referenced, so guidance is only implied.

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