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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'offline' as a behavioral trait, but does not disclose input format expectations, output specifics, error handling, or any side effects. For a computation tool, this is minimal and insufficient.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose. It has no filler, but the brevity sacrifices necessary detail, making it under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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?

Given the tool has one parameter, no annotations, and an output schema, the description should at least specify how to construct the input. It does not, leaving the agent without enough information to call the tool correctly. The existence of an output schema covers return format, but input requirements are missing.

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 schema has one parameter 'q' with 0% description coverage, so the description must explain the parameter format. It implies 'q' holds two coord pairs but does not specify the exact structure (e.g., delimiter, order). This adds only a vague hint and fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 computes an initial compass bearing between two coordinate pairs, a specific and distinct function. It is unambiguous about the resource and operation, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling geospatial tools like 'geodist' or 'antipode'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, with no mention of use cases, exclusions, or preferred scenarios, leaving the agent to infer applicability from the name and title.

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