shoot_location_check

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

The description adds context well beyond the annotations: a payment is taken per call with only two free public source requests, a sandbox mode returns dummy data with no payment, and there is no free sample of the package. It also discloses exactly what third parties receive (DWD gets a station id only; LfU gets coordinates rounded to about 100 m; both see the server address), warns that source data are untrusted facts, and disclaims legal sufficiency for filming in protected areas. The annotations only cover idempotency and side-effect hints; this is genuinely additional behavioral information.

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 core capability and return keys are front-loaded, which is good, but the paragraph becomes a grab-bag: sandbox is mentioned twice ('SANDBOX (development)' and 'Sandbox results are simulated'), and privacy, legal and untrusted-data notes are strung together in one dense block. It is readable but not tight.

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 paid, open-world lookup with no output schema, the description lists the top-level JSON keys (sun, weather, protected_areas, attributions, not_included, coverage) and flags what is not included. Combined with the payment and sandbox caveats, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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 the schema already documents latitude, longitude and date, including the Germany bounding boxes and the 3-decimal rounding. The description only reinforces the Germany-only and date-window constraints, adding no syntax or format detail the schema lacks; baseline 3 applies.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and a precise composite resource: one paid lookup of sun times, official DWD forecast and Bavarian protected areas for a single location and date. That scope is distinct enough from siblings such as shoot_day_plan or local_market_check that an agent can route correctly without opening the schema.

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?

It states the operating envelope clearly (one location and date, Germany only, today plus 9 days of weather, sun times for any date) and explicitly excludes drone-zone and permit data, which prevents misapplication. It doesn't name a sibling alternative or say when shoot_day_plan would be the better choice, so it falls short of a 5.

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