Geocoding & Weather

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. Only mentions Nominatim usage but does not disclose rate limits, authentication, error behaviors, or output format.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load key information with no redundancy.

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?

Lacks explanation of return values (no output schema) and does not address usage policies or that limit applies primarily to forward geocoding. Adequate for simplicity but incomplete.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions; the description does not add extra meaning beyond clarifying forward vs reverse roles, which is already inferable.

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?

Clearly states it performs forward and reverse geocoding using OpenStreetMap Nominatim, differentiating from sibling tools (timezone, weather) which are unrelated.

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?

Implies when to use forward (with q) vs reverse (with lat/lon), but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. No mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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 full burden of behavioral transparency. However, it only states the output (timezone and country info) without disclosing whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, or requires authentication. This is minimal disclosure 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 a single, efficient sentence that conveys the tool's purpose and methods without superfluous words. Every part is necessary 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 core functionality but lacks details on expected behavior when multiple parameters are provided, whether any parameters are mutually exclusive, and what the output format is (no output schema). For a simple lookup tool, it is adequate but not fully 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, fulfilling the baseline. The description adds value by grouping parameters into alternative lookup methods (coordinates, country code/name, IP), clarifying that these are distinct means of querying. This goes beyond individual parameter descriptions.

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 retrieves timezone and country information using coordinates, country code/name, or IP address. It provides a specific verb ('Get'), the resource (timezone and country info), and the lookup methods, distinguishing it from siblings like geocode_address and 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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks explicit 'when-to-use' or 'when-not-to-use' context, and does not mention any prerequisites or conditions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose alone.

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 carries the full burden. It discloses that city names are 'geocoded automatically' but does not mention rate limits, data source, or what happens if inputs are conflicting or invalid. The behavior is reasonable but minimal.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with key information. No unnecessary words or redundant details. Highly efficient.

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 no output schema and five parameters, the description is minimal. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on the output format (e.g., what fields are returned), error handling, or usage nuances. Adequate but not thorough.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds minor context ('Provide coordinates or a city name') clarifying the relationship between parameters, but does not significantly enhance understanding 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 'Current weather and multi-day forecast' with input options ('coordinates or a city name'). It distinguishes well from sibling tools geocode_address and 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 implies usage for weather retrieval and mentions two input methods. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer one input over the other or compare with siblings, though the distinct purpose makes this less critical.

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