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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the Open-Meteo source but does not describe side effects (external API call), rate limits, or what happens with the other parameters. The schema notes that many parameters are 'discarded,' but that information lives in the schema, not the description, and the description adds no behavioral context beyond the core function.

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, front-loading the core purpose. It is appropriately concise, though the brevity sacrifices necessary detail, making it less helpful than it could be.

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 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to specify which parameter to use, what the output looks like, or any constraints (e.g., only city names supported). An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool correctly based on the description alone.

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%, so every parameter has a description, setting a baseline of 3. The tool description adds no value beyond the schema—it does not clarify which parameter represents the 'place' or how the parameters relate. This is a missed opportunity given the high parameter count.

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 a clear verb and resource: returns latitude and longitude for a place via Open-Meteo. However, it does not specify which of the 9 input parameters identifies the place, creating ambiguity. It also does not distinguish this tool from siblings like weather-hint, which may also return coordinates.

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 or iana-zones. It does not state when not to use it, nor does it clarify which parameter should be provided (e.g., city vs. query). The usage context is only implied by the phrase 'for a place.'

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