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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, such as side effects or state changes. It only describes input format (Hebrew/English) but does not explain what happens after entering the city name (e.g., whether it triggers a search, modifies state, or returns data).

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, with two sentences and a clear args list. It avoids unnecessary detail, though the first sentence could be merged with the args explanation. Overall, it is well-structured and efficient.

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 the tool has one parameter and an output schema (not described), the description omits what the tool returns or how it fits with siblings. It lacks context about the tool's role in the weather forecast workflow (e.g., input step before opening or selecting).

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 schema has no description for 'city_name' (0% coverage). The description adds useful semantics: 'City name to search for (Hebrew or English), e.g. ירושלים or Jerusalem.' This clarifies supported languages and provides concrete examples, compensating well for the lack of schema documentation.

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 says 'Type a city name into the weather2day search box,' which implies the tool inputs a city name for weather forecast, but it does not explicitly state the tool's function. The purpose is inferred from the name and action, but lacking direct clarity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., select_weather_forecast_city_israel, open_weather_forecast_israel). The description does not mention alternatives or context for use.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions 'current page' but does not explain if it navigates, modifies state, or requires prior actions. The output schema likely clarifies return format, but behavior is only partially described.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads key information. Every word adds value 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?

Given no parameters and an output schema, the description is minimal. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., whether the page must already be loaded) and does not explain how it relates to sibling tools. Adequate but could be more complete.

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?

There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter info, but none is needed. Baseline is 4 for zero-parameter tools.

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 explicitly states the verb 'extract', the resource 'clean inner text from the current Israel weather page', and the purpose 'for LLM context'. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools that deal with navigating or selecting forecast cities.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus siblings like open_weather_forecast_israel or select_weather_forecast_city_israel. It does not mention any prerequisites or when extraction is appropriate.

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

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

Discloses that the browser is visible (non-headless) and persistent for session reuse. No annotations, but description covers key behavioral aspects. Does not mention any potential side effects, but launch action is non-destructive.

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?

Two short paragraphs with clear front-loading of purpose. Could be slightly more concise, but no wasted sentences.

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 tool has no parameters and output schema likely describes return, description is complete. It covers the essential context: persistent session for reuse.

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?

No parameters; schema covers 100% of zero params. Description adds value by specifying the exact URL and browser mode, going beyond schema.

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 it launches a persistent Chromium browser and opens a specific URL for Israel weather forecast. It distinguishes from sibling tools by indicating this is the setup step for subsequent tools to reuse the session.

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?

Explicitly states to use before subsequent Israel weather tools. While no explicit when-not or alternatives, the context of sibling tools (enter, select, extract) implies this is the prerequisite opener.

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

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

No annotations provided; description mentions a UI click and wait, but lacks details on prerequisites (e.g., dropdown visibility) or failure handling.

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?

Single sentence, directly on point, no wasted words.

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?

With zero parameters and an output schema, the description is complete for this simple UI step; it tells the agent exactly what to do without needing further elaboration.

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?

No parameters exist; the description fully explains the tool's action, leaving no ambiguity about what it does.

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 it clicks the first city suggestion and waits for the forecast page, distinguishing it from sibling tools like enter (typing) and extract (data extraction).

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 use after entering a city and before extracting data, but does not explicitly state when to use or not use it, nor mention alternatives.

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