enter_weather_search_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 discloses that the tool uses the shared Page in `_PLAYWRIGHT_CONTEXT` and that it waits for autocomplete results, which are useful behavioral details. However, it does not mention potential side effects, error conditions, or what happens if the page is not open. The description provides some transparency but lacks depth for a UI automation tool.

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 sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the core action, and the second provides a crucial prerequisite. It is front-loaded and efficient, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 single-parameter tool with a clear prerequisite, the description is fairly complete. It covers what to do (enter city, wait), the shared context, and the required predecessor. It does not explain the next step (selecting from autocomplete) or error handling, but that is likely covered by sibling tools and the overall workflow. The description is sufficient for correct invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning by explicitly mentioning 'Enter the city name', linking the sole parameter 'city' to the action. However, it provides no additional constraints, formats, or examples. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema's type and title, but enough to understand the parameter's role.

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 action: 'Enter the city name into the search field and wait for autocomplete results.' It specifies the verb (enter), the resource (search field), and the outcome (wait for autocomplete). This distinguishes it from siblings like open_weather_forecast_israel (which likely opens the page) and select_weather_forecast_city_israel (which likely selects from results). The purpose is unambiguous.

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 explicitly mentions a prerequisite: 'open_weather_forecast_israel should be called first.' This gives the agent clear ordering context. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, but the prerequisite effectively routes the agent to the correct sequence. The usage guidance is sufficient for typical invocation.

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