uae_weather_forecast

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

The description discloses that no API key is required, which is beneficial. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention rate limits, data sources, update frequency, or any side effects. The input schema notes clamping for days, but the tool's behavior beyond that is opaque.

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 sentence that conveys the essential purpose and a key advantage (no API key). It is front-loaded, with no unnecessary words. Every part serves a clear function.

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 tool's simplicity (2 parameters, output schema present), the description is fairly complete. It explains the core functionality and a notable feature. The output schema covers return values, so the description does not need to elaborate on that. A small gap is the lack of mention of valid cities, but this is partially addressed by the schema's reference to another tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning to parameters beyond what the schema already provides. The city parameter references another tool (`uae_weather`) for valid cities, but the description itself does not clarify what values are acceptable. The days parameter's range and clamping are already in the schema.

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 provides a 'Multi-day daily weather forecast for a UAE city,' which is a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like `uae_weather` (likely current weather) and `weather_by_coords` (location by coordinates) by emphasizing the multi-day forecast aspect.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `uae_weather` or `weather_uae_all`. The description implies it's for multi-day forecasts, but does not mention when not to use it or provide comparative context. The default days parameter (7) suggests a typical use case but not explicitly.

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