select_weather_forecast_city_israel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It reveals a key detail: the first autocomplete item is not always the city itself, recommending text matching for correct selection. It also states that clicking loads the forecast page, providing sufficient transparency for the primary action, though edge cases are not 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?

The description is concise, with a single-sentence purpose followed by a focused explanation of the sole parameter. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds valuable information without 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?

For a tool with one parameter and no annotations, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, and a behavioral caveat. The presence of an output schema means return values need not be explained. It lacks explicit timing relative to sibling tools but is otherwise complete for its simplicity.

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 input schema only lists 'index' with a default and no description (0% schema coverage). The description thoroughly explains the parameter: it is zero-based, defaults to 0, and warns that the first item may not be the city, advising preference for matching text. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of information.

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 'Click a city from the autocomplete list and load its forecast page', specifying a specific action and resource. It differentiates from sibling 'enter_weather_forecast_city_israel' by focusing on selection rather than typing, but does not explicitly contrast with all siblings, preventing a perfect score.

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 implies it should be used when an autocomplete list appears after entering a city, noting the first item may not be the desired one. It advises selecting the index whose text matches the user's request, which is helpful but not explicit about when to choose this over 'enter' or 'open' siblings. Usage context is implied rather than clearly delineated.

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