weather_forecast_days

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It does disclose a key behavioral trait: a limit of 'up to 10 days' and the daily nature of the forecast. However, it omits other behaviors like default units, pagination behavior, error handling, or authentication requirements. The external link may offer more details, but the description itself is sparse.

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 highly concise: a single front-loaded sentence stating the core purpose and a link to official documentation. There is zero fluff or redundant content. Every word adds value, and the structure is optimal for quick scanning.

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 complexity (7 parameters, no output schema) and missing usage guidance, the description is incomplete. It provides a basic purpose but fails to contextualize parameters, clarify when to use it, or describe the return format. The external link might help, but the description should be self-sufficient for an AI agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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. It only adds meaning for the 'days' parameter by mentioning the 10-day limit. Parameters like pageSize, pageToken, unitsSystem, and languageCode are left unexplained. While the names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description does not clarify defaults or usage semantics, leaving a significant gap.

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 provides 'up to 10 days of daily forecast,' identifying both the verb (provide/return) and resource (daily forecast). It distinguishes from siblings like weather_forecast_hours and weather_current_conditions by specifying daily granularity. A minor lack of an explicit verb like 'retrieve' prevents a perfect score.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as weather_forecast_hours or weather_history_hours. The description does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or preferred scenarios. The only implicit hint is the tool's name and the phrase 'daily forecast,' but explicit usage direction is absent.

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