get_daily_forecast

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden. It discloses the forecast range, data exclusivity, and default/slot behavior. However, it does not mention return format, error handling, or update times; the output schema covers structure but the description provides limited behavioral nuance beyond parameters.

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 short sentences plus an Args list, each line containing unique and necessary information. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and immediately provides key differentiators, with no wasted words.

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 tool with an output schema and two optional parameters, the description covers purpose, differentiators, and parameter semantics. It doesn't address error scenarios or response format, but given the low complexity and presence of an output schema, it is sufficiently complete.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the Args block fully compensates. It explains 'location' as region name with default region behavior, and 'slots' as number of forecast times with default 24 and max 100. This adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema properties.

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 does '앞으로 3일까지의 예보를 조회한다' (retrieves forecast up to 3 days) from the KMA, with a specific resource and action. It also distinguishes itself by noting that precipitation probability and daily min/max are only available here, which differentiates it from sibling tools.

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 explicitly states that precipitation probability and daily min/max temperatures are only found here, guiding the user to use this tool when those fields are needed. It implies which alternatives exist but does not name them directly, so it's clear but not fully exhaustive.

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