compute_distance

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only reveals that it computes oceangoing distances. It does not disclose how routes are determined (e.g., waypoints, land avoidance), processing details, or any limitations.

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 a single sentence, concise and direct. However, its brevity sacrifices important details, making it minimally acceptable.

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 four required parameters with no schema descriptions, no annotations, and an output schema that is not described, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format or any additional context needed 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?

All four parameters (start_lat, start_lon, end_lat, end_lon) have no descriptions in the schema (0% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning or constraints, leaving the agent to infer their purpose from the tool name.

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 action (compute), the resource (shortest oceangoing route distance), and the unit (nautical miles). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like compute_geodesic by specifying 'oceangoing'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings. It does not mention that this is for ocean routes and should be used instead of compute_geodesic for maritime distances.

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