weather_forecast

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and adds valuable behavioral context beyond basic functionality, such as specifying the data sources (DMI HARMONIE 2km model for first 2.5 days, ECMWF for up to 16 days), which informs about accuracy and time ranges. However, it lacks details on error handling or rate limits.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and key behavioral details without unnecessary information, making it easy for an agent to understand quickly.

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 moderate complexity, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is mostly complete, covering purpose, usage context, and data sources. However, it could improve by mentioning output format or error cases to fully compensate for the lack of structured fields.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining parameter interactions or default behaviors, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 purpose with specific verbs ('Get hourly or daily weather forecast') and resource ('for a location in Denmark'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'compare_weather' and 'current_weather' by specifying forecast retrieval rather than comparison or current conditions.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (for weather forecasts in Denmark), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like 'current_weather' for real-time data, which could help differentiate usage scenarios more precisely.

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