gem_forecast

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'Get weather forecast', implying read-only behavior, but does not disclose rate limits, data update frequency, geographic coverage limits beyond 'Canada and North America', or any side effects. The behavior is minimally described.

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 a single sentence of 12 words, efficiently conveying the source model and coverage area. It is front-loaded with key information. Slightly more detail on output structure could be added without harming conciseness.

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?

The description does not mention the structure of the forecast output (e.g., JSON, fields) nor the availability of daily, hourly, or current weather options. Given no output schema, the agent lacks context on what the response will contain. The tool's capabilities beyond the described model and region are not set.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The tool description does not add any additional semantic information beyond what the schema already provides. Therefore, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 weather forecasts from the Canadian GEM model, specifically for Canada and North America with high-resolution data. This differentiates it from sibling tools that use other models or regions, though it does not mention the available variable types (daily, hourly) which are detailed in the schema.

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 provided on when to use this tool over the many sibling weather tools. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or scenarios where the GEM model is preferred (e.g., for Canadian regions). The description lacks comparative context.

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