get_forecast

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does convey the read-only nature through the verb 'Get' and notes that unit_system is reserved with only 'metric' available, but it does not disclose error behavior, data source, or output semantics beyond what the output schema already supplies.

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 with the purpose, and uses a clean Args list. Every sentence adds value; the parameter details are directly relevant and not redundant with the schema's type/const metadata.

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 description covers the core operation and all parameter semantics, and the output schema handles return-value details. The main gap is the absence of explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over get_current_weather, though 'daily forecast' strongly implies the distinction.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter: latitude/longitude in decimal degrees with ranges, days with a 1-16 bound, and unit_system's reserved status. This adds meaningful information not available from the schema's titles and defaults.

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 is specific: 'Get a daily forecast for a coordinate pair' names a clear verb, resource, and target. It distinguishes from geocode_location and get_current_weather implicitly through 'daily forecast', but does not explicitly call out the sibling relationship.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'daily forecast' rather than explicitly stated. The description does not name alternatives or provide when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance relative to get_current_weather or geocode_location.

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