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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It only mentions 'via Open-Meteo,' implying an external network call, but says nothing about side effects, rate limits, response format, or the fact that many schema parameters are discarded. The mismatch between the stated purpose and the discard-heavy schema is also unexplained.

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 concise sentence with no fluff and the core purpose front-loaded. It is appropriately brief as a summary, even though it lacks the supporting detail needed for correct invocation.

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 9-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is far too sparse. It does not explain how to specify the place, what the returned latitude/longitude format is, or whether any of the many other parameters are relevant. It leaves critical invocation details unresolved.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, the description fails to identify which parameter represents the place. The schema's 'city' parameter says it is for a weather hint and discarded after the call, while 'query' says it is discarded after a length check—both conflict with the tool's stated geocoding purpose. An agent cannot reliably determine how to invoke this tool.

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 states the tool returns latitude and longitude for a place using Open-Meteo, with a specific verb and resource. However, it doesn't map 'a place' to any of the schema's many parameters, and it doesn't distinguish itself from sibling tools such as weather-hint or timezone.

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 use case is implied: use when you need coordinates for a place. But there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives like weather-hint, no mention of when not to use it, and no explanation of which input to provide.

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