forecast_incidence

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the empirical 80% interval methodology (rolling-origin backtest residuals), explains that out-of-range horizons are refused rather than extrapolated, mentions case-insensitivity for province input, and directs users to the model-card for known failure modes. This is rich, transparent behavioral disclosure.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose and confidence intervals. Every sentence adds value: the Args section is directly relevant, and the reference to the model-card is a valuable safety note without padding.

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 moderate complexity (forecast, uncertainty, validation) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what, how far ahead, uncertainty interpretation, validation constraints, and a reference for caveats. The output schema handles return value details, so no further description is needed.

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 schema provides no property descriptions (0% coverage), but the description's 'Args' section adds crucial meaning: province is case-insensitive, and horizon_weeks must be 1-8 with refusal beyond that range. It also clarifies the default isn't stated but appears in schema. The description fully compensates for the schema gap.

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 states a specific action ('Forecast') with a specific resource ('weekly malaria incidence') and clear scope ('1-8 weeks ahead, with 80% intervals'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that compare, list, retrieve history, or detect signals.

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 clearly indicates when to use the tool (for forecasting future incidence) and provides the important context that horizons beyond the validated range are refused. It references the model-card for validation details and failure modes, which is useful guidance, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state 'when not to use' beyond the horizon restriction.

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