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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the main behavior: returning coordinates via Open-Meteo. It does not mention which input parameter identifies the place or what the return shape is, but it is not misleading and gives a reasonable basic contract.

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 short, front-loaded clause with no filler. Every word contributes to the core meaning, making it appropriately concise despite being minimal.

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 nine parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, a one-line description is incomplete. It does not specify the required input, the shape of the returned coordinates, or error behavior, so an agent would have to guess how to invoke it correctly.

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?

The schema has 100% coverage, but the description fails to connect 'a place' to any of the nine parameters. The closest candidate, city, is described as 'City name for a public weather hint,' and query is described as search text, leaving the agent unable to determine which field drives the geo lookup.

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 that the tool returns latitude and longitude for a place and identifies Open-Meteo as the provider. It is not a tautology and conveys the core geocoding purpose, though it lacks an explicit verb and does not differentiate from closely related 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?

The phrase 'for a place' implies the tool should be used when geographic coordinates are needed, so usage is somewhat implied. However, there is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives or prerequisites.

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