open_weather_forecast_israel

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose the tool's behavior itself. It does state that it opens a browser and navigates, and describes the success/error outcomes. However, it lacks any additional behavioral context such as prerequisites (e.g., GUI environment), network reliance, or potential side effects beyond opening the browser. This meets the minimum viable standard but does not go further.

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 extremely concise: one sentence describing the action and a clear 'Returns' section. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or extraneous information. The structure front-loads the primary purpose immediately.

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 tool with no parameters and an output schema (per context signals), the description covers all essential information: what the tool does and the possible return states. It does not need to explain return values in detail because the output schema presumably handles that. The description is fully adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is empty. The description correctly adds no parameter information, and the baseline for tools with no parameters is 4. There are no parameter semantics to clarify, so the score reflects that the description appropriately handles the absence of parameters.

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 action: 'Opens browser and navigates to Israeli weather forecast site.' The verb 'opens' and specific resource ('Israeli weather forecast site') distinguish it from sibling tools that enter/select city or get content, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (enter_weather_forecast_city_israel, select_weather_forecast_city_israel, get_weather_forecast_content_israel). It simply describes the action, leaving the agent to infer that this is likely the initial step, but no explicit 'when' or alternative guidance is given.

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