meteo_forecast

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

Annotations indicate read-only and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral details: geocoding with fuzzy fallback, hourly data only for first 48 hours, and upstream failure handling with direct links. No contradictions with annotations.

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 well-structured with clear sections (use_case, important_notes, example, Args). It is informative without being overly verbose. Some redundancy between notes and Args could be trimmed, but overall efficient.

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?

Combined with a comprehensive input schema and annotations, the description covers key behaviors like hourly data scope and fallback. Output format is mentioned but not detailed. Error handling is lightly noted. Sufficient for moderate complexity.

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 input schema already provides thorough descriptions for all parameters. The description's Args section adds minimal extra value (e.g., roundtrip saving hint for lat/lon). Baseline 3 due to high schema coverage; description offers little beyond.

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 explicitly states it provides a 1-16 day weather forecast using MeteoSwiss ICON model, with daily values and optional hourly. It distinguishes from sibling tools like meteo_current and meteo_warnings by specifying forecast range and detail.

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?

The description includes important notes about geocoding, lat/lon override, hourly data limitations, and fallback behavior. It gives examples for typical use. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use this tool.

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