weather_forecast

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get weather forecast', which implies a read operation, but does not disclose what the forecast includes, any limitations, rate limits, or data sources beyond the name. Important behavioral traits like forecast range, data freshness, or cost are missing.

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 very short (5 words), which is concise, but it sacrifices necessary detail. It is front-loaded with the action, yet it fails to convey critical information that could be added without becoming verbose. A score of 3 reflects the trade-off between brevity and completeness.

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 has 4 parameters, no output schema, and many sibling weather tools, the description is incomplete. It does not specify what forecast data is returned (e.g., temperature, precipitation), how to use the 'days' parameter, or what timezone format is expected. The agent lacks sufficient context to use the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds minimal meaning: 'for a location' weakly hints at latitude/longitude parameters, but does not explain the 'days' or 'timezone' parameters. The agent gets little benefit beyond the parameter names themselves.

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 action ('Get weather forecast') and the resource ('a location from Open-Meteo'). It provides a specific verb and resource, but does not differentiate this tool from other weather forecast tools among siblings, such as 'weather_current' or 'willyweather_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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context to choose among many similar weather tools.

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