extract_weather_forecast_content_israel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it extracts and returns text, implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose any side effects, permissions, or error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a notable gap.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core action and output. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or vague filler.

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?

For a simple 0-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is functional but minimal. It includes a useful workflow context ('after city selection') but does not elaborate on what 'clean text' entails or potential failure cases. The output schema likely covers return format, so it is adequate but not rich.

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 description coverage is 100% (empty schema covers all). Per guidelines, the baseline is 4 for 0 params; the description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate since there are none to explain.

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 a specific verb (extracts) and resource (forecast content from the page) and its output (clean text for LLM). It distinguishes itself from siblings by the action 'extract' versus 'open', 'enter', 'select', though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

It provides a clear precondition ('after city selection') but does not explicitly compare with sibling tools or state when not to use it. The usage context is implied rather than explicit, offering no exclusions or alternative routing.

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