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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, but it only says 'via Open-Meteo', implying a network call. It does not clarify that most parameters are discarded, whether the operation is read-only, what happens on failure, or what the response format is. The description fails to convey the tool's true behavior beyond the geocoding use case.

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 sentence with no fluff, but it is under-specified. It lacks any structural cues about usage, parameter priority, or edge cases. Brevity is not conciseness when essential information is omitted.

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?

The tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description covers only the geocoding aspect. It provides no explanation of the validation/discard behavior for the other parameters, making it impossible for an agent to understand the tool's full contract. This is a significant completeness gap.

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 coverage is 100% with per-parameter descriptions, but the tool description adds no semantic value to parameters. It does not indicate which parameter (e.g., city) should be used for the lat/long lookup, nor does it clarify the role of the many 'discarded' parameters. The description leaves parameter selection entirely to the schema, which is confusing due to the unrelated fields.

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 'Latitude and longitude for a place via Open-Meteo', which is a specific purpose, but it contradicts the input schema that includes many unrelated parameters (ref, url, json, etc.) described as 'discarded after the shape check'. This misalignment makes the tool's actual purpose ambiguous and fails to differentiate it from siblings 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as weather-hint, timezone, or iana-zones. The description does not mention any conditions or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess when this tool is appropriate.

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