Search meteoblue locations

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior, but it only states what the tool resolves. It does not disclose that the response likely contains multiple possible location matches, how results are ordered, or how pagination behaves. The agent cannot anticipate the reply structure before invoking the tool.

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, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose, accepted inputs, and output. There is no repetitive fluff, and the sentence earns its place.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should clarify result shape and usage context. It omits that the response is likely a list of candidates, how to choose between them, or how pagination works, leaving unclear behavior for an agent trying to invoke 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?

The description adds real semantic detail for the query parameter by listing accepted input forms (city, place, postal, IATA, ICAO) beyond the schema's generic 'Location search text'. However, page and limit are undocumented in the schema and the description does not compensate for those, so the parameter semantics are only partially complete.

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 uses a specific verb ('Resolve') and resource, and clearly enumerates accepted inputs (city, place, postal code, IATA code, ICAO code) and outputs (coordinates and elevation). This makes the tool's scope unmistakable and it is clearly distinct from the forecast-based sibling tools.

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 that this tool is the location-lookup step before forecast retrieval, but it does not explicitly say when to use it versus the get_forecast siblings or when not to use it. An agent can infer the use case from the context, but the guidance is not explicit.

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