enter_weather_forecast_city_israel

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

The description discloses the immediate behavior and outcome: it types a city name and a list opens. However, no annotations are provided, and the description does not mention side effects such as overwriting existing text, waiting for results, or what happens if no city matches. This leaves some behavioral gaps.

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 short, front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place: the action, the outcome, the prerequisite, and the parameter explanation. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 low-complexity tool with a single parameter and an output schema, the description is largely complete. It gives the prerequisite, the action, the expected outcome, and parameter guidance. What is missing is mostly non-critical detail about error conditions or subsequent steps, which are hinted at by the sibling tool names.

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 schema provides only a string parameter named 'city' with 0% description coverage. The tool description compensates by explaining that the value must be a Hebrew city name and gives concrete examples, which is sufficient semantic guidance for this single parameter.

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's action: entering a city name into the search field on the forecast page, with the expected outcome that a matching city list opens. This is distinct from the sibling tools (open, select, get content), so the agent can tell it apart without opening schemas.

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 explicitly says to run this after open_weather_forecast_israel, giving clear sequencing context. It does not mention when not to use it or describe alternatives, but the prerequisite alone is strong guidance for this pipeline-style tool.

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