Get municipality forecast

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the burden of conveying safety and behavior. It clearly indicates a read-only operation ('Get') and discloses the forecast window (up to 7 days) and data source (AEMET). It does not mention potential limitations like response format or external dependencies, but for a simple read tool this is adequate.

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 that covers the essential aspects without fluff. Every phrase adds value: action, resource, scope, source, and identifier.

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's simplicity—one well-documented parameter and a clear read operation—the description is nearly complete. It covers the return type (daily forecast), time window, and data source. It lacks explicit differentiation from siblings, but the sibling names in the context signal provide that information.

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 documents the sole parameter with 100% coverage, including format (5 digits), an example (28079 for Madrid), and a lookup URL. The description only adds 'INE code' which is redundant with the schema, providing no additional semantic meaning beyond the structured data.

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 identifies the verb ('Get'), the resource ('daily weather forecast'), and the scope ('Spanish municipality from AEMET', 'up to 7 days'). It differentiates itself from sibling tools (station observation, weather warnings) by focusing on forecast for a municipality by INE code.

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 implies use for municipality weather forecasts and mentions the 7-day limit, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus get_station_observation or get_weather_warnings. No exclusions or alternative instructions are provided, leaving the choice to the agent based solely on tool names.

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