get_weather_forecast

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return format (hourly forecasts and daily summaries with min/max temperatures and precipitation totals), which is helpful. However, it doesn't address critical behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or data freshness that would be essential for an agent to use this tool effectively.

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 extremely concise and well-structured. The first sentence clearly states the core purpose, and the second sentence efficiently describes the return format. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, 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?

Given that there's an output schema (which should document the return structure), the description doesn't need to explain return values in detail. However, for a weather forecast tool with 2 parameters and no annotations, the description should provide more context about parameter usage and behavioral constraints. The current description is adequate but leaves gaps in usage guidance and behavioral transparency.

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 description provides no information about parameters beyond what's in the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the schema only shows parameter names and types without explaining their meaning. The description doesn't compensate by explaining what 'location' should contain (e.g., city name, coordinates) or what 'days' represents. This meets the baseline for minimal parameter information.

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: retrieving weather forecasts for a location. It specifies the verb 'abrufen' (retrieve) and resource 'Wettervorhersage' (weather forecast), making the intent unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_current_weather, which prevents a perfect score.

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. With siblings like get_current_weather and get_weather_alerts available, there's no indication of when this forecast tool is preferred over current conditions or alert tools. The description only states what it does, not when it should be used.

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