locate_emitter

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses the estimation method, the accuracy class (~tens of km), the output components (centroid, CEP, confidence), and an explicit honesty caveat that this is not RF direction-finding. It does not mention cost, rate limits, or whether an empty footprint yields an error versus a null estimate.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose and method first, then the plain-language restatement of the output, then the accuracy caveat and scoping hint. No filler, and the key limitation is not buried.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the accuracy caveat is well covered. However, for a 0%-coverage four-parameter tool the description leaves the radius and detail controls opaque, which is a real gap for correct invocation.

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, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It mentions only lat/lon scoping; 'detail' (default 'short') and 'radius_nm' (default 500) are never explained, leaving the agent to guess what the detail levels and search radius actually do.

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 and resource — estimate the location of a GPS jammer/spoofer from a degraded-ADS-B footprint — plus the method (severity-weighted centroid + CEP + confidence). This clearly separates it from the sibling gps_jamming (which reports jamming occurrence), though that sibling is never named explicitly.

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 framing 'turns "jamming somewhere here" into "emitter ~here ±N km"' implies the situation where it applies, and 'Scope with lat/lon' hints at required context, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g., call gps_jamming first to confirm a footprint exists).

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