get_village_forecast

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses one important behavioral trait: 'Can be slow as it returns a lot of data' - this provides valuable context about performance. However, it doesn't mention other important behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'a lot of data' specifically means in terms of response structure.

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 appropriately concise with three sentences that each add value: purpose statement, usage guidelines, and performance warning. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. The structure is logical, though the 'useful for' phrasing could be more direct.

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 that an output schema exists (which should document return values), the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, for a tool with 2 required parameters and no annotations, the description should provide more parameter context and additional behavioral transparency. The performance warning is helpful but insufficient for full completeness.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides NO information about the parameters (latitude and longitude) - no explanation of what they represent, their format, valid ranges, or units. The description mentions the tool returns forecast data but doesn't connect this to the required location parameters.

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's purpose: 'Get Village Forecast (Short Term, up to 3 days)' - this specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('Village Forecast'), and temporal scope ('Short Term, up to 3 days'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_ultra_short_term_forecast' by specifying a different time horizon. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling beyond temporal differences.

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 provides clear usage context: 'useful for: planning for tomorrow or the day after, checking daily highs/lows' - this explicitly states when to use the tool. It doesn't mention when NOT to use it or explicitly name alternatives, but the temporal scope implies it's not for immediate forecasts (which the sibling tool likely covers).

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