detect_deception

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the detection categories and the global-scope behavior, but it does not mention permissions, data freshness, confidence, or any limitations of the detection beyond the jamming distinction.

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 compact and front-loads purpose and usage. The rhetorical question and descriptive parentheticals are useful framing, though slightly verbose for a tool definition.

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?

The output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a four-parameter tool with no schema descriptions, the definition is incomplete because it omits radius_nm and detail semantics and does not explain the detection scope in more operational terms.

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% for four parameters. The description only addresses lat/lon indirectly via 'Omit coords for global' and says nothing about radius_nm or detail, leaving two parameters entirely undocumented.

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 and resource: it flags manipulated tracks, not jamming, and enumerates AIS duplicate-MMSI, impossible teleports, ADS-B GPS spoofing, and kinematic position-injection. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling gps_jamming tool, so an agent can select it without opening the schema.

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 gives a clear operational condition: 'Run before trusting a feed in a contested area,' and notes 'Omit coords for global' for scope selection. It contrasts itself with jamming but does not explicitly name when to call gps_jamming instead or state any exclusions.

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