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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It only says data comes from external service Open-Meteo; it does not disclose input requirements, unknown city behavior, network dependency, side effects, or what the return value looks like.

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 direct, front-loaded, and contains no filler. The single sentence does present the core purpose clearly, but it is terse in a way that leaves application guidance to other dimensions.

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?

This tool has nine optional parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and no usage or failure details. The one-sentence description is not enough for an agent to know exactly which input to use, how to interpret the output, or what happens in invalid cases.

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 description coverage is at 100%, so each parameter is already documented in structured form. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond 'place,' and it leaves the reader to infer that city is the likely relevant parameter.

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 that the tool returns latitude and longitude for a place using Open-Meteo, which names both the output and the data source. However, it does not identify which of the nine schema fields supplies the place, and it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like weather-hint.

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 weather-hint, timezone, iana-zones, or other siblings. There are no stated exclusions, alternatives, or conditions that would help an agent decide when this tool is the right choice.

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