bearing_calculation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool calculates bearing, implying a read-only operation, but does not detail output format (e.g., degrees, radians), error handling (e.g., for invalid coordinates), or computational traits (e.g., precision, range). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first: 'Calculate bearing (compass direction) from one point to another.' The additional domain and category tags are brief and relevant. There is no wasted verbiage, making it efficient, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on output (e.g., bearing in degrees), error conditions, and usage context relative to siblings. While concise, it does not provide enough information for an agent to confidently invoke the tool without additional assumptions.

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%, meaning parameters (lat1, lon1, lat2, lon2) are undocumented in the schema. The description mentions 'from one point to another,' hinting at coordinate inputs, but does not explain parameter roles, units (e.g., degrees), or constraints (e.g., valid ranges). It adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the low coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Calculate bearing (compass direction) from one point to another.' It specifies the verb ('calculate'), resource ('bearing'), and context ('from one point to another'), making the function unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'geom_great_circle_distance' or 'angle_difference', which might handle related calculations, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 description provides minimal guidance on when to use this tool. It includes domain and category tags ('Domain: trigonometry, Category: applications'), which imply context but do not specify when to choose this over alternatives like 'geom_great_circle_distance' for distance or 'angle_difference' for angular computations. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions are given, leaving usage unclear.

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