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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the data source (Open-Meteo) and that it returns coordinates, but does not explain network dependence, error handling, rate limits, or what happens with the various input parameters. The behavior of the tool is largely opaque, especially since parameters like 'discarded after the shape check' are only in the schema, not the description.

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 concise, being a single sentence with no wasted words. However, it is not well-structured for agent use: it lacks front-loaded key details such as required parameters or typical usage patterns. It is under-specified rather than efficiently concise, so it earns a 3.

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?

Given the tool has 9 optional parameters, no required ones, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain how to invoke the tool correctly, which parameter to use for the place, what the response looks like, or any constraints. An agent would struggle to use this tool without additional context, so a 2 is warranted.

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% description coverage for all 9 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any meaning beyond the schema; it does not indicate which parameter corresponds to 'a place' (likely city or query, but not specified). The description adds minimal value over the schema, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 provides latitude and longitude for a place via Open-Meteo, identifying the core function and data source. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like weather-hint or timezone, which could also involve geographic context. The purpose is clear but not explicitly differentiated from related tools.

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. No mention of suitable input types, prerequisites, or scenarios where a different tool (e.g., weather-hint) would be preferred. The agent is left to infer usage from the description alone, which is insufficient for a tool with 9 optional parameters.

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