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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the output convention (0-360, clockwise from true north), but says nothing about edge cases such as identical points, antipodal inputs, or error behavior for a pure-computation 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?

A single tight sentence with the output range and convention front-loaded and zero filler. Every clause 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?

For a deterministic math tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description gives enough to call it correctly: input concept, output range, and reference frame. Only edge-case behavior is left unspecified, which is a minor gap here.

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 0% and the single parameter is a nested object with four numeric fields. The description implicitly maps 'point 1' and 'point 2' to the lat/lon pairs, and 'compass bearing' clarifies the units, but it does not clarify field-level ordering or coordinate format beyond that.

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 specific verb (compute bearing) and resource (compass bearing between two points) with an explicit directional convention. It is clearly distinct from geo_distance and geo_midpoint, though it does not name siblings to reinforce the contrast.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus geo_distance, geo_midpoint, or geo_dms, and no mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer fitness from the description alone.

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