Open-Meteo Geocoding: search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description isn't carrying the safety burden. It adds real value beyond them: results are a ranked candidate list (best match first) with specific fields, which is exactly the ambiguity an agent needs to know about. It omits failure behavior (no matches) and any rate-limit notes, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three sentences, each doing distinct work: purpose, sequencing dependency, return shape. The most decision-relevant fact (this feeds weather_forecast) is front-loaded in sentence two with zero filler.

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, the description steps in to list returned fields, which is the main gap it needed to close for a 3-param read tool. The only missing piece is what happens on a zero-match result, a minor omission for a geocoder.

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 all three parameters are already documented with defaults and bounds. The description restates the effect of `limit` ("up to `limit` candidates are returned") but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a concrete verb+resource transformation: turning a city or place name into coordinates. It also distinguishes itself from weather_forecast by naming the upstream role it plays, so an agent can identify it without reading 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?

"Use this before weather_forecast, which needs latitude/longitude" gives an explicit ordering constraint and names the dependent sibling. The agent knows both when to call it and why, rather than having to infer from sibling names.

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