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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core function but fails to disclose that many parameters are 'discarded', that the city parameter appears to be the relevant input, or any error/edge-case behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. However, the brevity comes at the expense of essential routing information, making it under-specified rather than meaningfully concise.

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?

In a suite containing many shape-check and hint tools, this description gives an agent almost nothing to go on: no input mapping, no expected output format, no constraints, and no alternative guidance. An agent would struggle to invoke it correctly.

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 provides descriptions for each parameter, so the baseline should be around 3, but the tool description does not help map 'a place' to a specific parameter. The schema's 'discarded after the shape check' style notes actually add confusion because they don't align with a tool that returns coordinates.

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 states the tool returns latitude and longitude for a place via Open-Meteo, which names a clear output and data source. However, it does not specify how 'a place' is identified among the many input parameters, nor does it differentiate this tool from siblings like weather-hint or timezone.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention sibling tools or provide conditions under which geo-hint should be selected over weather-hint, timezone, or other location-related tools.

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