get_forecast

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains input resolution behavior (returns nearest point for coordinates, matches by name) and output structure (temperature, wind, precipitation, sky condition). It mentions echoing the matched location for confirmation. Lacks explicit statement about read-only or idempotency, but the forecast nature implies safety.

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 well-structured: one-line summary, numbered resolution methods, args list, output summary. It is slightly lengthy but every sentence adds value. Formatting (newlines, bullets) aids readability. Could be trimmed slightly, but overall 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 5 optional parameters, no enums, and an output schema exists, the description covers all key aspects: location resolution options, output fields, and response echoing. It explicitly mentions the forecast range (today+3 days). It does not require additional details like timezone or date format, as the output schema likely covers them. The description is complete for an agent to correctly invoke the 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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It fully explains each parameter: location (with Greek/Latin examples), location_id (reference to list_locations), latitude/longitude (decimal degrees, returns nearest point), days (optional cap). It adds ordering advice (most reliable first) and example values, adding significant value beyond the 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 retrieves the EMY forecast for a single location for today plus up to 3 days. It specifies three distinct resolution methods (lat/lng, location_id, location name) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_alerts or get_warnings which deal with alerts, not forecasts.

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 detailed guidance on how to resolve the location using three methods, ranked by reliability, and gives tips (e.g., 'best for English/exonym place names'). It also explains output details like echoed location matching. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or point to alternatives like get_alerts for warnings.

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