forecast_region

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the function (aggregate forecast) and output, with no mention of side effects, permissions, rate limits, or whether it is read-only. For a forecast tool, this is minimal 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 two sentences: one for purpose and one for output. No fluff, every word adds value. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description explains the return value (risk number and top countries). It is sufficient for basic use, though the format or scale of the number is unspecified.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with a description for 'region'. The tool description reinforces the region examples but adds no new semantics beyond the schema. Baseline is 3 for high coverage.

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 verb 'Aggregate' and the resource 'shutdown-risk forecast for a UN sub-region', with examples like 'MENA'. It also specifies the output: 'regional risk number and the top countries driving it'. This differentiates it from siblings like forecast_regions (which may return a list of regions) but lacks explicit distinction.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as forecast_regions or other forecast tools. The description does not include context about prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases, making it hard for an agent to choose correctly among many siblings.

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