netintel_weather_forecast

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the shape of the returned forecast (daily fields plus an optional hourly block). It says nothing about rate limits, caching, data freshness, or what happens with ambiguous city names, so the behavioral picture is only partially covered.

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?

One dense sentence with the purpose and payload front-loaded; every clause adds information. The trailing ellipsis ('Give a city name…') suggests the description is cut off, which hurts polish but not density.

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?

A 6-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema needs more: units values, defaults for days/units, and location-parameter precedence are all unaddressed. The payload description partially compensates for the missing output schema, but the input contract is still underspecified.

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 coverage is 0% across 6 parameters, so the description has to compensate: it explains the 'days' ceiling ('up to 16 days'), the 'hourly' toggle ('optional next-24h hourly'), and that location may be a city or lat/lon. It leaves 'units' completely undefined (a string with no enum in the schema) and never states that city and latitude/longitude are mutually exclusive or which wins.

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+resource ('multi-day weather forecast') and enumerates the payload in detail (highs/lows, precipitation, UV, sunrise/sunset, wind, conditions, optional hourly), which clearly separates it from a current-conditions tool. However, it never names the obvious sibling netintel_weather_current, so the differentiation is left implicit.

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 only usage hint is the truncated fragment 'Give a city name…', which is a parameter hint rather than guidance. There is no statement of when to prefer this over netintel_weather_current, no note on city-vs-coordinates precedence, and no exclusions.

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