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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a search/read operation and lists the returned fields, but it does not cover matching behavior, ordering, pagination, or how the limit parameter affects results.

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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by return details and downstream usage. Every sentence adds useful information without filler.

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?

For a simple lookup tool with no output schema, the description does well by listing the return fields and explaining the downstream site-code workflow. However, it omits parameter details for province and limit, so it is not fully complete given the 0% schema description coverage.

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 should explain all three parameters. It adds meaning for query by saying names may be English or French, but it never explains the province filter or the limit parameter, leaving two parameters undocumented.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: "Search Canadian forecast locations by name, in English or French." It also explains how this tool relates to its siblings by saying to use the returned site code with the other tools. That is enough for an agent to distinguish this discovery tool from the forecast and alert tools.

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 gives a clear usage context: search for a location, then use its site code with the other tools. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives for place-based lookups, but the intended workflow is clear.

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