Identify potential geothermal, mineral, gas, or water resources at a given latitude and longitude, returning gated low-confidence indications for further verification.
Geothermal / mineral / gas / water indication (gated, low-confidence).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lat | Yes | ||
| lon | Yes | ||
| type | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two real traits: access is gated and the signal is low-confidence. It does not explain what the gate is (auth/tier?), whether calls are metered, or what an indication actually returns, so material behavior remains undisclosed.
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 terse fragment with no filler and the key qualifier front-loaded is efficient. But the brevity tips into under-specification rather than crispness, and there is no structure distinguishing purpose from caveats.
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?
No output schema and no annotations, with a 3-parameter schema at 0% coverage in a technical geospatial domain. The agent is left guessing the return shape, confidence semantics, coordinate conventions, and the meaning of 'gated' - the definition is far too thin for the tool's complexity.
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%, so the description must compensate. It implicitly enumerates the likely values of the 'type' parameter (geothermal/mineral/gas/water), which is genuinely useful, but lat/lon formats, valid ranges, and whether 'type' is optional/required are left 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?
Names the resource being probed (geothermal/mineral/gas/water) and calls it an 'indication', which is more specific than a tautology. However, it never states it is a lat/lon spatial lookup, and it overlaps conceptually with the sibling water_availability without saying how the two differ.
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 parenthetical '(gated, low-confidence)' hints that results are restricted and unreliable but gives no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. Nothing routes the agent between this and water_availability or ground_truth.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.