Get Forecasts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful behavioral context by mentioning concurrent fetching and by explaining the return shape as a mapping from city to forecast data. It does not cover edge cases like unknown cities or failures, but for a simple read-only forecast tool this is a reasonable level of transparency.

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 compact and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by structured Args/Returns sections. It loses a point for minor redundancy between 'Dictionary mapping city names to forecast data' and the nested 'forecasts (dict)' bullet, which slightly muddies the return shape.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete: it gives the required input, an example, and a high-level summary of what will be returned. It could be more thorough about error behavior or accepted city identifier formats, but the essentials needed to invoke the tool correctly are present.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it documents the `cities` parameter as a list of city identifiers and provides a concrete example (`['Bern', 'Thun']`). This adds real meaning beyond the bare array-of-strings schema, though 'identifiers' remains somewhat underspecified.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Get forecasts for multiple cities.' It further clarifies the resource by listing return contents (current temp, 2-hour forecast, trend), which distinguishes it from sibling single-city/current-condition tools such as get_current_temperature and get_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 clearly signals that this tool is for multiple cities and that all forecasts are fetched concurrently, which gives an agent a clear reason to choose it over single-city alternatives. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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