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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions use of Open-Meteo, implying an external network call, but does not describe rate limits, output format, side effects, or that most schema fields are discarded. The schema's per-parameter 'discarded' notes are not sufficient to explain the tool's overall 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 very brief and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It omits critical operational details and is not sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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?

Given nine optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too incomplete. It fails to specify which parameter to use, what the return value looks like, and how to handle the many irrelevant parameters. This is a severe gap for a tool with this level of ambiguity.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, leaving the mapping from 'place' to the city or query parameter unclear. The city parameter description confusingly references a 'public weather hint' rather than geocoding, so the description does not clarify the intended input.

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 clearly indicates that the tool provides latitude and longitude for a place and names the external service (Open-Meteo). This distinguishes it from weather, timezone, and validation siblings. However, it lacks an explicit verb and does not identify which input parameter represents the place.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like weather-hint or timezone. It does not state that the city parameter should be supplied or that other parameters are ignored. There are no exclusions or alternative tool references.

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