Get meteoblue weather forecast

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

Since no annotations are given, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that place names are resolved internally and that only packages documented for the Free Weather API are accepted, but it omits rate limits, authentication expectations, potential errors, and the structure of the returned forecast JSON.

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?

Three short, focused sentences: the first states core purpose, the second clarifies place-name behavior, and the third restricts acceptable package inputs. There is no filler or repetition.

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?

This is a 13-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, yet the description only covers the location and free-package constraints. It leaves important operational details—such as what package names mean, how forecastDays/historyDays interact, and what the resulting forecast JSON looks like—entirely implicit, making it hard for an agent to call correctly for varied user requests.

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 low (38%). The description contributes some meaning by framing place name and coordinates as alternative input modes, and it adds a constraint about acceptable packages. However, it does not compensate for the many undocumented parameters like historyDays, forecastDays, or the unit parameters, which are left to the schema's enum/default values only.

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 specifies a verb and resource ('Get meteoblue forecast JSON'), the output format (JSON), and the two main input modes. The word 'JSON' also immediately separates it from the image-returning sibling get_forecast_image.

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?

It clearly indicates that place names can be passed directly and are resolved via the Location Search API, which tells an agent it does not need a separate lookup first. The mention of JSON implies this is for raw data, not images, though the description does not explicitly name an alternative for those cases.

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