getFutureWeatherByAirport

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It specifies the forecast duration and IATA code format but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational behavior.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the tool's purpose and scope, and the second clarifies the parameter with examples. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy, making it easy to parse and 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 (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics well but lacks behavioral details like response format or error conditions, which are important for a weather forecasting tool without structured output documentation.

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 the parameter fully. The description adds value by reinforcing the IATA code requirement and providing examples (PEK, SHA, CAN, HFE), which aids in understanding the parameter's practical use beyond the schema's pattern constraint.

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 specific action ('Get airport future weather'), resource ('airport'), and scope ('for 3 days (today, tomorrow, the day after tomorrow) by airport IATA 3-letter code'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on weather forecasting rather than flight data, date, or location queries.

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 implies usage by specifying the 3-day forecast and IATA code requirement, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for weather planning vs. flight tracking). No exclusions or direct comparisons to sibling tools are provided, leaving some ambiguity about optimal use cases.

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