reproject_point

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load, and it usefully discloses the accepted input formats and that common CN CRSes are pre-registered. However, it omits behavior on unknown/unregistered CRSes, whether z is preserved, and error or transformation-failure handling. Solid input context but not full behavioral coverage.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the input-format specifics. No filler; every clause carries useful information.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential input semantics and supported CRSes well. It stops short of describing the returned coordinates or failure modes, which leaves a small gap for a transformation 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add real meaning for from/to by documenting EPSG and proj4 string formats with examples and listing pre-registered codes, but the nested point object (x/y/z) is left entirely unexplained.

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?

Names a specific verb (reproject), resource (a single point), and mechanism (proj4) between two CRSes. The word 'single' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling reproject_points, and the CRS/format specifics make the operation unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'single point' suggests this is the per-point variant versus batch siblings like reproject_points or transform_coords, but the description never explicitly names an alternative or states when to prefer this tool. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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