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

Annotations already declare the tool as readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the mathematical context of computing a destination point and default units, which enhances transparency without contradiction.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that states the purpose and key parameters upfront. No extraneous words; every part 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?

While parameters are fully covered and the tool is simple, the description lacks explicit mention of the output format (e.g., returns a lat/lon point). For a geospatial computation, this omission could require inference.

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 each parameter is described. The description adds value by grouping parameter meanings, stating default unit (km), and clarifying bearing orientation (0=N, 90=E), which goes beyond the schema examples.

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 verb 'compute' and the resource 'destination point', with explicit inputs (start lat/lon, bearing, distance). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'distance' which computes distance between two points.

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 usage for finding an endpoint given start, bearing, and distance, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'distance' or when not to use it.

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