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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it only states the output and data source. It does not mention external network calls, which parameter is expected, that most other parameters are 'discarded', or any side effects. The schema hints at broader behavior, but the description itself is too thin.

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 filler. While it is concise, it is arguably too terse for the complexity of the 9-parameter schema, so it does not earn a perfect 5.

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 the high complexity (9 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It covers one narrow use case but does not explain return format, which parameters to provide for which outcome, or why unrelated parameters like 'json' and 'path' exist.

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 description adds minimal context about the 'place' concept and the Open-Meteo provider, but it does not meaningfully explain the relationship between the 9 parameters and the tool's stated purpose.

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 a clear, specific purpose: returning latitude and longitude for a place via Open-Meteo. It names a resource ('place') and a provider, making the core function understandable, though it does not differentiate from sibling tools like weather-hint.

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 implies when to use it: when a latitude/longitude for a place is needed. However, it provides no explicit guidance about alternative tools, exclusions, or the fact that the schema accepts many unrelated parameters.

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