get_forecast

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

Annotations are absent so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden, yet it only restates the read action ('Get weather forecast'). It does not disclose side effects, return format, data sources, or any limitations beyond what the tool name already implies.

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 short, front-loaded with the core statement, and uses a clean Args format. Every line serves a purpose; nothing is wasted, though the Args section largely duplicates schema field titles.

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 only two self-explanatory parameters and an output schema present, the tool is nearly complete as documented. Missing optional details like coordinate units and range validation are minor for this simple tool.

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%, and the description does add a minimal gloss by explaining latitude/longitude are 'of the location'. However, this barely compensates for the gap, and it omits useful semantics such as units (decimal degrees), ranges, or valid values.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get weather forecast') for a location, which clearly identifies the tool's purpose. It does not explicitly name or differentiate from the sibling tool get_alerts, but the resource difference (forecast vs alerts) is implied by the wording.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. The description gives no context for choosing this tool over get_alerts, nor any constraints like coordinate ranges or supported regions. The only hint is the implicit location scope.

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