get_forecast

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears the burden of explaining behavior. It merely states that a forecast is returned, with no information about forecast periods, units, response shape, limitations, or coordinate conventions. An agent cannot anticipate what a call will actually do or produce.

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 opening sentence is concise and front-loaded, but the entire Args block is redundant with the input schema. Repeating parameter names and titles adds no meaningful value for an agent and wastes space.

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?

While an output schema exists, the description still does not clarify core usage details like coordinate format, forecast timeframe, units, or incompatibilities with get_alerts. The definition is sufficient only for the most basic tool routing, not for correct invocation.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, and the description's Args section merely restates the parameter names and titled 'Latitude/Longitude'. It does not provide valid ranges, units, formats, examples, or any constraints beyond the schema itself.

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?

States a clear verb-resource pair ('Get weather forecast') and explicitly ties it to a location, making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It naturally differentiates from the only sibling, get_alerts, since forecasts and alerts are distinct weather products.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use get_forecast versus get_alerts, no scenario description, and no criteria to choose between them. The usage context is only implied by the tool name and basic purpose, not actually explained.

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