tomorrow_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide — no rate limits, auth requirements, time-range constraints, or data availability notes.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise, though its brevity means it omits useful context rather than being overly verbose.

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 four-parameter historical-weather tool with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description is far too thin. It does not explain date formats, location format, API key handling, units, or response shape, leaving significant gaps for correct invocation.

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 0% and the description mentions no parameters at all. It does not explain the required location, startTime, or endTime fields, nor the api_key parameter, leaving the agent to infer formats and meaning entirely from bare schema names.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get historical weather data from Tomorrow.io.' This clearly separates it from forecast/realtime siblings by the word 'historical,' but it does not explicitly name or contrast with alternatives like tomorrow_forecast or historical_weather.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The word 'historical' implies a past-data use case, but the description does not mention when-not-to-use, prerequisites, or which sibling to pick for forecasts or current conditions.

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