get_price_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 discloses the time horizon (7 days) and the data source distinction (actual vs estimate). However, it does not mention the return format, potential error conditions, or any other behavioral traits like rate limits. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Two sentences front-load the key information: the tool's capability and a usage hint. Every word earns its place; no fluff. Excellent 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?

Given the tool has no output schema and moderate complexity (2 params, 7-day forecast), the description is fairly complete: it explains the time range, data source distinction, and provides a usage hint. It does not describe the output format, which would improve completeness, but the essential context is conveyed.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for both parameters (enum values explained). The description adds minimal extra context (price zone and mode meanings are already covered in schema). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 gets a 7-day electricity price forecast for a price zone. It distinguishes between actual day-ahead prices and weather-corrected estimates, and provides a concrete use case in Danish. The purpose is specific and differentiates from sibling tools like get_current_price or get_today_prices.

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 includes a usage hint ('Use for elpriser de næste dage / prognose') which indicates when to apply it. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives, but the context of siblings and the forecast nature provides implicit guidance. Close to a 5 but lacks explicit exclusions.

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