get_weather_forecast_content_israel

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it extracts text content, but does not mention side effects, permissions, whether it depends on prior state beyond the stated step, or any potential errors. For a read-like operation, it is missing a safety profile or behavioral caveats, similar to the update_drive example.

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 two short sentences, completely free of redundancy. It front-loads the action and then gives the sequence dependency. Every word earns its place, achieving maximum conciseness with clear structure.

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 zero parameters and an output schema (though not shown), the description need not explain return values. It provides the necessary step number and the prerequisite action. It does not address failure conditions or side effects, but for a simple extraction step, the context is sufficient. A 4 reflects that it covers the essentials without over-explaining.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. With no parameters, the description cannot add parameter meaning, but it does refer to the preceding step to clarify the context of the 'loaded city weather page'. The baseline of 4 is appropriate given the zero-parameter case.

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 verb 'extracts' and the resource 'text content from the loaded city weather page', distinguishing it as a specific step in the workflow. Its purpose is unambiguous and it does not overlap with the sibling tools, which handle opening, entering, and selecting 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?

The description gives an explicit precondition: 'Call this after select_weather_forecast_city_israel.' This clearly tells the agent when to use it. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but given the stepwise nature of the tool chain, this is adequate context for correct invocation.

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