tomorrow_forecast

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It fails to mention any side effects, rate limits, authentication requirements (despite an api_key parameter), or the nature of the forecast (e.g., current conditions, daily, hourly). The description is entirely silent on these aspects.

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 extremely concise at six words, which is efficient but comes at the cost of essential details. It is front-loaded but too minimal to be truly useful. A slightly longer but well-structured description would improve this dimension.

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 four parameters (one required) and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the meaning of parameters, the structure of the forecast response, or any prerequisites like API keys. This leaves the agent without sufficient context to use the tool effectively.

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 description does not add any meaning to the four input parameters (location, timesteps, units, api_key) beyond what the schema provides. With schema description coverage at only 25%, the description should compensate but completely ignores the parameters, leaving the agent uninformed about how to use them correctly.

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 specifies the action ('Get') and the resource ('weather forecast from Tomorrow.io'), making the purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate this tool from several other weather forecast tools in the sibling list, such as 'weather_forecast', 'willyweather_forecast', and 'amber_forecast', which perform similar functions.

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 over alternatives like 'weather_forecast' or 'amber_forecast'. There are no instructions on prerequisites, required parameters, or scenarios where this tool is preferable.

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