FMI Finnish Energy Hub Weather Forecast (WFS)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it does disclose useful traits: the upstream is FMI's WFS, data is hourly, and no Fingrid API key is needed. It says nothing about rate limits, result size/ordering, units, time zone, or what a response looks like, which leaves meaningful behavioral gaps for a data-fetch 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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the variable/location list packed into one clause. The trailing key-requirement sentence is short and relevant, so nothing is wasteful, though the parenthetical list is dense enough to be slightly hard to scan.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation means the definition is thin for a 3-parameter data tool: units, time zone, and the historical pull window are entirely unstated. The description also does not explain that places is capped at 10 or that past hours can be requested at all.

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 for all three parameters and it does not: places, hoursBack, and hoursAhead are never mentioned. It also omits the historical window implied by hoursBack (0–72) and the 72-hour cap on hoursAhead, both of which materially affect results.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — hourly FMI WFS weather forecast — and enumerates the six variables and the five hub locations it covers. It implicitly separates itself from fmi_weather_observations by saying 'forecast', but never names that sibling or fmi_fingrid_nowcast explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance; the agent is not told how to choose between this and fmi_weather_observations or fmi_fingrid_nowcast. The only routing hint is 'Does not require a Fingrid API key', which weakly implies it is a keyless alternative to the Fingrid series tools, but no condition or exclusion is spelled out.

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