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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that it uses Open-Meteo, implying an external network call, but does not disclose that most parameters are discarded, what happens with multiple inputs, or any side effects or constraints.

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, extremely concise, but it omits essential information needed to invoke the tool correctly. This is under-specification rather than efficient conciseness; it does not front-load any actionable detail.

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's complexity (9 parameters), the lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain how to specify the place, what the return value looks like, or how the many other parameters are handled, making it nearly impossible for an agent to use 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 description coverage is 100%, with each of the nine parameters individually described. The tool description adds no semantic value beyond that; it does not clarify which parameter is the primary one for the place, leaving the agent to guess among city, query, or others.

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 via Open-Meteo, which is a specific verb and resource. However, it does not specify which of the nine input parameters corresponds to 'a place', nor does it differentiate itself from siblings like weather-hint that also handle city data.

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 instead of alternatives, no conditions for selection, and no indication of which parameter to supply for the place. The description is a bare statement without any usage context.

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