Geocoding & Weather

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions using OpenStreetMap Nominatim but does not disclose rate limits, attribution requirements, or usage policies that may affect agent decisions (e.g., 1 request per second limit).

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 two sentences, zero wasted words, and clearly structured by separating forward and reverse modes. It is highly concise and front-loaded.

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?

The description covers the two modes and parameter usage but does not specify the output format (e.g., structure of lat/lon, whether multiple results are returned). With no output schema, more detail on return values would be helpful for completeness.

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 100%, so parameters are already well-documented. The description adds context by associating 'q' with forward and lat/lon with reverse, and clarifies that 'limit' caps at 5. However, this adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 does forward and reverse geocoding using OpenStreetMap Nominatim. It distinguishes between the two modes: forward converts address to lat/lon, reverse converts lat/lon to address. This is specific and distinct from sibling tools (get_timezone, get_weather).

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 explains when to use forward geocoding (with an address) vs reverse geocoding (with lat/lon). It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context of siblings makes the use case clear.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the function and inputs but does not mention side effects, error handling, read-only nature, or response format. While the function seems safe, more detail would improve transparency.

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 concise sentence that conveys the tool's purpose and input options without fluff. It is well front-loaded and every word contributes meaning.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does not specify what 'timezone and country information' includes (e.g., offset, abbreviation, country name). While common knowledge may fill gaps, explicitly listing typical return fields would enhance completeness for an AI agent.

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 100%, and the description adds value by grouping parameters into lookup methods (coordinates, country, IP). This helps the agent understand parameter relationships, though each parameter's individual meaning is already clear from the schema.

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 gets timezone and country information using coordinates, country code/name, or IP address. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (geocode_address, get_weather) by focusing on timezone/country data rather than address resolution or weather.

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 specifies the input methods (coordinates, country, IP) but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or provide conditions when not to use. However, the context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden but only covers the basic function. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as data source, rate limits, read-only nature, or error handling. The description is too minimal for a tool with no annotations.

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 extremely concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word adds value, with no redundant or irrelevant information.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal. It explains the core functionality but does not cover parameter interactions (e.g., mutual exclusivity of coordinates and location) or return format. Adequate but could be more complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that either coordinates or a city name can be used, which clarifies the relationship between parameters. However, it does not add extra detail beyond the schema for days and units.

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 it provides current weather and multi-day forecast for any location, using coordinates or city name. The verb 'get' and resource 'weather' are explicit, and the tool is distinct from siblings (geocode_address, get_timezone) which serve different purposes.

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 instructs to provide coordinates or a city name, implying usage but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are mentioned, though siblings are unrelated so not necessary. Could be improved by clarifying fallback or required parameters.

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