srgssr_weather_forecast_24h

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context: the geographic bounds for Swiss locations and the limit of 24 hourly data points. This goes beyond the annotations and helps set expectations.

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 compact and well-structured using XML-like tags (use_case, important_notes, example). Each sentence or section serves a distinct purpose, and no filler or repetition exists.

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?

The combination of annotations, output schema, and description covers the tool's behavior well for a read-only weather forecast: it specifies the data source, time horizon, geographic limits, and provides an example. It lacks details on error handling for out-of-bounds coordinates or response format, but the output schema exists to cover the latter.

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 explain the parameters itself, but the input schema has detailed descriptions for latitude, longitude, and geolocation_id. The description adds an example (latitude=47.3769, longitude=8.5417) and reinforces the coordinate range, which provides minimal added meaning beyond the schema.

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 tool returns an hourly weather forecast for the next 24 hours from SRF Meteo. This specific resource and time frame distinguishes it from sibling tools like srgssr_weather_current and srgssr_weather_forecast_7day.

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 use_case tag gives clear context for when to use the tool (daily planning, event organization, short-term warnings). However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when to use the current or 7-day forecast, so it stops short of full alternative guidance.

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