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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds 'Local computation: no network call,' informing the agent that this is a fast, offline operation. It also describes the mathematical behavior (inverse of distance+bearing). It does not discuss edge cases (e.g., invalid ranges), but for a simple geometric function the provided information is sufficient.

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 with no wasted words. The functional definition is front-loaded, and the inverse relationship plus local computation note are appended efficiently. Every word contributes.

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 simple local calculation with complete schema descriptions and an assumed output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it computes, the inverse relationship, and the local/network behavior. It does not mention precision or error handling, but those are not critical for this straightforward tool.

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% and every parameter is already described in the schema (start coordinate, distance in metres, bearing clockwise from true north). The description essentially restates these values without adding new meaning, so it does not go beyond the baseline for fully covered parameters.

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 states a specific verb (travel) and resource (coordinate), and precisely defines the output as the coordinate reached by traveling a given distance and bearing. It explicitly identifies itself as the inverse of `geo_distance` and `geo_bearing`, which distinguishes it from those sibling tools immediately.

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 clearly indicates the relationship to `geo_distance` and `geo_bearing` by calling itself the inverse, which implies the appropriate usage context (i.e., when you need a destination point rather than distance or bearing). It does not explicitly state 'use this when...' or give exclusions, but the inverse relationship provides adequate context for an agent to route correctly.

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