extract_weather_page_content

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action (extract text) but does not mention whether this is read-only, if it has side effects, requires specific page state, or has rate limits. No additional behavioral traits are surfaced beyond the literal meaning.

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 a single, concise sentence in Hebrew that front-loads the verb and clearly states the object. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool has an output schema and no parameters, so the description is fairly complete for a simple extraction action. However, it lacks integration context with sibling tools (e.g., when to call it after navigation) and does not mention edge cases like 'no page loaded.' This leaves minor but clear gaps.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema is complete by default (100% coverage). The description adds no parameter meaning, but none is needed. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, which is appropriate here.

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 uses a specific verb ('מחלץ' / extracts) and identifies the resource ('תוכן הטקסט מהעמוד הנוכחי' / text content from the current page) along with the beneficiary ('עבור ה-LLM' / for the LLM). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on weather forecast navigation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool relative to its siblings, such as 'call after entering a city' or 'use this instead of X when you need the page text.' The description simply states what it does without any contextual usage advice.

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