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

With no annotations, the description is the sole source of behavioral disclosure. It reveals an external dependency on Open-Meteo but does not state the output format, error behavior, latency, or that certain inputs are discarded after the call.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. It is concise, though arguably too sparse for a tool with nine parameters and no annotations.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and nine optional parameters, one sentence stating the core purpose is not complete. An agent cannot confidently determine which parameter to populate or what the response will look like.

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 input schema already documents all nine parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no mapping between 'a place' and a specific parameter such as city or query, leaving some semantic ambiguity despite the schema coverage.

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 sentence conveys that the tool returns latitude and longitude for a place and names Open-Meteo as the data source, which distinguishes it from siblings like weather-hint and timezone. It lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'return' and never says which input parameter supplies the place, so it is not a perfect 5.

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 geo-hint versus alternatives such as weather-hint or timezone, and no mention of prerequisites (e.g., a city name). The only implicit trigger is 'a place,' which is too vague for a tool with nine optional parameters.

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