weather_forecast

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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, open-world call. The description adds only the data source and gives no further behavioral context such as forecast horizon, default values, units, or response characteristics.

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 to the point of under-specification for a four-parameter forecast tool, but its structure is clean.

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 undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the forecast length, timezone handling, units, or what the response contains, so an agent would need to inspect the schema and guess at key semantics.

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%, so the description carries the burden of explaining four parameters. It only implies that 'latitude' and 'longitude' represent a location and says nothing about 'days' or 'timezone', leaving half the parameters without any semantic explanation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('weather forecast') and names the data source (Open-Meteo). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from sibling forecast tools such as weather_hourly, weather_current, historical_weather, or tomorrow_forecast.

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 guidance on when to use this forecast versus weather_hourly, weather_current, historical_weather, or willyweather_forecast. The intended usage is only implied by the tool name and the word 'forecast'.

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