arnfa_where

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses that the tool returns a 'bulk real forecast, never fabricated', which is a meaningful promise about data authenticity and request scope. However, it does not disclose details such as data source, latency, error handling, or whether any side effects occur, though the read-only nature is reasonably inferred from 'Rank WHERE'.

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, focused sentence that packs purpose, scope, and a data-quality promise without waste. Every phrase earns its place, making it both concise and front-loaded.

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 optional parameter) and the explicit 'Rank WHERE' phrasing, the description conveys the essential purpose. However, without an output schema or further behavioral details, it leaves some ambiguity about the exact return format (e.g., a sorted list of locations with scores). The 'bulk' hint partially addresses this, so the description is adequate but not fully complete.

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 only parameter, 'day', is fully described in the input schema with '0=today … 6 days ahead', and the description merely restates 'chosen day' without adding new semantic detail. With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate and the description does not elevate it further.

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 tool's purpose: 'Rank WHERE the sky is clearest across Thailand for a chosen day'. It also adds thematic context with the 'ไปไหนดี / where should I go' view, which helps differentiate it from a general sky-now tool. However, it stops short of explicitly contrasting with sibling tools like arnfa_sky_now or arnfa_list_areas.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. It does mention 'for a chosen day' as a temporal condition, but it does not state when not to use it, nor does it reference any sibling tools or alternative approaches.

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