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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers useful behavior: result cap (up to 10), ordering by relevance, the returned field set, and the non-obvious degree-letter coordinate format quirk. It stops short of stating behavior on zero matches or any auth/rate-limit constraints, so not a full 5.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then return shape and the coordinate-format caveat. Every sentence earns its place; nothing is repeated from the schema.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description does the heavy lifting well, documenting return cardinality, ordering, fields, and coordinate encoding. Minor residue remains: undefined `language` behavior and unspecified no-match/error handling for a tool other agents depend on.

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, and it does for three of four parameters: it defines `query` (place name or postal code) and the paired `lat`/`lon` semantics (nearest known place) plus their mutual exclusivity. The `language` parameter is never mentioned, leaving one 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Find locations and their Meteosource place_id') and immediately frames the tool's role relative to siblings: it produces place_id values consumed by the other weather tools. An agent can distinguish it from get_forecast/get_alerts without reading any 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?

Explicitly says 'Use this first' and names the two alternative input modes with their selecting conditions: `query` for place name/postal code, `lat`+`lon` for nearest known place. This is exactly the when-to-use/when-to-use-which guidance the dimension asks for.

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