Weather forecast

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 states the tool 'Get[s] weather forecast' but doesn't elaborate on what the forecast includes (e.g., temperature, precipitation), time range, data source, rate limits, error handling, or authentication needs. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.

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, clear sentence: 'Get weather forecast for a location.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero wasted words, and is appropriately sized for a simple tool. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.

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's moderate complexity (weather forecasting with geographic parameters) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the forecast returns (e.g., data format, time periods), potential limitations, or how to interpret results. For a tool with no structured output information, more descriptive context is needed.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (latitude and longitude) fully documented in the input schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or usage tips. However, since the schema covers all parameters adequately, the baseline score 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's purpose: 'Get weather forecast for a location' specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('weather forecast') with the target ('location'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get-alerts' by focusing on forecasts rather than alerts, though the distinction isn't explicitly stated. The purpose is specific and actionable.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention the sibling tool 'get-alerts' or any other tools, nor does it specify prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases. Without such context, the agent must infer usage based solely on the tool name and description.

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