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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior fully. It mentions 'via Open-Meteo' implying a network call, but it doesn't clarify that many parameters are discarded (as their schema descriptions indicate) or that the tool may not actually return coordinates for all inputs. The description contradicts the schema parameter hints, which describe shape checks and discards, creating confusion about what the tool really does.

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 sentence, which is concise. However, it is under-specified and front-loads the output without addressing the input, so the structure is not helpful for an agent deciding how to call the tool.

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 and no output schema, the description is drastically incomplete. It does not explain how to provide the place, what the response format is, any constraints, or what happens when parameters are discarded. The complexity demands far more detail.

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%, but the parameter descriptions are unrelated to latitude/longitude (e.g., 'Git ref name', 'HTTPS URL', 'File path'). The tool description does not bridge this gap, leaving the agent unable to determine which parameter supplies the place. It adds no value beyond the schema and actually misleads by implying a place input that doesn't exist.

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 the output (latitude and longitude) and the source (Open-Meteo), so it is not a tautology. However, it fails to specify how the place is identified—no parameter is mentioned as the input for the place, and the 9 parameters in the schema are about URLs, file paths, JSON, etc., not directly a place name. This ambiguity makes it unclear which parameter to use.

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 like weather-hint or timezone. No mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios. The description is a single sentence with no contextual advice for selection.

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