compare_with_reference

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the computed metrics and the prerequisite that the reference comes from an imported GPX, but it says nothing about read-only nature, failure modes (e.g., mismatched route/reference), or tolerance thresholds. It adds context beyond the schema but not a complete behavioral picture.

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 well-formed sentence with one clarifying parenthetical about the reference type, and the purpose is front-loaded. No redundancy, though the trailing accuracy sentence is somewhat soft.

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 explained, and the tool is low-complexity with only two parameters. The definition covers the metric semantics, but omits the key disambiguation against compare_routes and any prerequisite/error conditions, leaving a visible gap for an agent choosing between the two comparison tools.

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% and neither parameter is described in the schema. The description partially compensates by framing reference_id as a field-recorded/imported trace and route_id as the route under test, but it never explains formats, ID origins, or constraints for either parameter.

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 ('Compare un itinéraire à une trace de référence') and enumerates the computed outputs (écart géométrique, écarts de distance et de D+). It names import_gpx as the source of the reference, but never distinguishes itself from the close sibling compare_routes, which an agent would need to disambiguate between.

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?

'Sert à calibrer et à vérifier la précision des calculs' gives a clear intent, implying it is a diagnostic/QA step rather than a routing tool. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, and no mention of how it differs from compare_routes.

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