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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it only states the external provider (Open-Meteo). It does not mention that it makes a network call, whether disk or network access is involved, what side effects may occur, failure modes, or that most schema inputs are 'discarded' except the relevant one. This is thin disclosure for a tool with many possible inputs.

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, compact sentence with no fluff. It is concise, but given the tool's 9-parameter ambiguity, it is perhaps too sparse to be an effective 'micro-concise' definition.

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?

This tool has 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is far too minimal to explain what an agent should do with the other parameters, what a valid response is, or when to prefer a sibling like `weather-hint`. The tool's true behavior is not fully specified.

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?

While schema description coverage is 100%, the description adds almost no parameter meaning and creates ambiguity: the `city` schema description says 'City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call', while the tool description says latitude/longitude are returned. The other eight parameters (url, json, path, zone, etc.) are completely unexplained relative to the stated purpose, leaving an agent without enough information to choose the correct parameter or combination.

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 an unambiguous purpose: return latitude and longitude for a place via Open-Meteo. It names a specific resource (a place), an operation (get coordinates), and the data provider. It does not, however, differentiate it from siblings like weather-hint, and the schema reveals many unrelated parameters not covered by the sentence.

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 call this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no prerequisite context. An agent only infers from 'latitude and longitude for a place' that it is for coordinates, but there is no mention of how to select among the nine optional parameters or what behavior triggers this tool.

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