get_3_days_weather

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It states that the tool returns 'cleaned weather data containing various weather elements and their time series', but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as authentication, rate limits, or side effects. The verb 'get' implies a read operation, but more detail would improve transparency.

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 structured with a clear first sentence stating the purpose, followed by an Args section and Returns section. It is mostly concise, though the list of valid county/city names adds length but provides necessary detail. Front-loading is good.

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 single parameter, no annotations, no output schema, and the presence of sibling tools (get_1_week_weather, get_historical_rainfall), the description adequately covers the parameter and basic purpose. However, it does not explain the return format in detail or provide guidance on when to use this versus siblings, leaving some 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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description adds significant meaning to the single parameter. It explicitly states 'must be a valid Taiwan county/city name' and provides a complete list of valid values, which is beyond what the schema provides (just a string type).

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 'Get 3-day weather forecast data for the specified county/city', providing a specific verb and resource. The scope is further refined by listing valid Taiwan county/city names. The tool name and description distinguish it from siblings like 'get_1_week_weather' by specifying the 3-day forecast period.

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 includes the required input (location_name) and lists valid values, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or provide any context on alternatives. Usage is implied but not explicitly guided.

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