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

The description only mentions Open-Meteo as a data source and provides no details about side effects, return format, or what happens with the other parameters. Since no annotations are present, the description carries the full transparency burden and fails to disclose that most parameters are described as discarded.

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 easy to read, but it omits essential structural information like which parameter is required or how parameters relate. It is concise but at the cost of being incomplete and ambiguous.

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?

With nine optional parameters, no output schema, and no explanation of parameter relevance, the description is far from complete. An agent cannot determine what to pass, what to expect back, or how to handle the many apparently irrelevant parameters.

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?

Although every parameter has a description, those descriptions are actively misleading—e.g., 'ref' says it is discarded after a shape check, and 'query' says it is discarded after a length check, none of which align with geocoding. The schema does not meaningfully clarify how to request latitude and longitude for a place.

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 that the tool returns latitude and longitude via Open-Meteo, but it does not specify what input to provide. With nine unrelated optional parameters and no mention of a 'place' parameter, an agent cannot confidently determine what this tool actually does.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like weather-hint or timezone. It does not explain which parameter is the place name or what conditions would make it the right choice.

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