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. It mentions Open-Meteo as an external dependency and the coordinate output, but it does not describe the return format, network behavior, failure modes, or how the many 'discarded' schema parameters relate to the actual operation.

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, focused sentence with no filler and the core output is stated immediately. It is concise, though the brevity comes at the cost of necessary operational detail.

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?

For a tool with 9 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this one-sentence description is not enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. It omits required input selection, return shape, and the behavior of the numerous unrelated or discarded 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 all 9 parameters have schema descriptions, the tool description adds no mapping from 'a place' to a specific input parameter. The most plausible input, city, is described as 'City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call', which conflicts with the stated geo-coordinate purpose and leaves the agent unsure which parameter to populate.

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 names the output ('Latitude and longitude for a place') and the source ('via Open-Meteo'), making the tool's basic purpose understandable. However, it is a noun phrase rather than a full statement with a verb, and it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the sibling 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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like weather-hint, timezone, or web-fetch. The only implied use case is needing coordinates, but no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided.

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