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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the output type and data source, but says nothing about side effects, authentication, rate limits, error behavior, or what happens with invalid input. The phrase 'via Open-Meteo' hints at an external API call but does not disclose any operational details.

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 and very concise, with no fluff. However, it is under-specified; it front-loads the output but omits essential input guidance. Being concise is good, but here it sacrifices necessary detail, so it earns a mid-range score.

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?

With 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. An agent cannot determine which parameter to provide, what the response format is, or any constraints. The tool's complexity demands far more explanation than a single sentence; this is inadequate for correct usage.

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?

While the schema has 100% description coverage for each parameter, those descriptions are unrelated to the tool's stated purpose (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check' for 'ref'). The tool description does not explain how any parameter maps to obtaining latitude and longitude, so it adds no meaningful semantics beyond the schema's already confusing text.

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 output (latitude and longitude) and the source (Open-Meteo), so it's not a tautology. However, it fails to specify how the place is identified—the schema has many unrelated parameters (ref, url, feed, host, etc.) with no guidance on which to use, making the tool's actual purpose ambiguous. It also does not distinguish it from siblings like '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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of conditions, exclusions, or which parameter to supply. An agent has to guess which input is appropriate for getting latitude/longitude, and there is no reference to sibling tools.

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