get_israel_weather

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention any behavioral traits such as side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or read-only nature. The description only states what it does, not how it behaves.

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 very concise, using a single sentence to state the purpose followed by a clear parameter definition. There is no fluff; every word earns its place.

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 that the tool has an output schema (implied by context signals), the description is complete enough for a simple weather tool. It explains the input and purpose, and the output schema presumably documents return values. No further details are necessary.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant meaning by specifying that the city parameter expects a Hebrew name and provides examples (e.g., Tel Aviv, Jerusalem). This goes beyond the schema's minimal 'City' title.

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 brings weather forecasts for a city in Israel, using a specific verb (מביא/brings) and resource (forecast). There are no sibling tools, so differentiation is not needed; the purpose is 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?

The description implies usage for Israeli cities only, but does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool, nor does it provide alternatives. Since there are no siblings, the implied context is sufficient for a basic tool.

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