geofence_contains

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

While the description explains behavior (boundary counts, return format), it contradicts the input schema which defines zero parameters. The tool presumably requires inputs (polygon and points) not reflected in the schema, causing confusion and reducing reliability.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. The action and key details are front-loaded.

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?

The description explains the output but critically omits how to provide the required inputs, which are absent from the schema. For a tool of moderate complexity, this is a significant gap.

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?

With no schema parameters, baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by naming expected inputs (polygon, points) but fails to clarify how these are supplied, leaving ambiguity. Schema coverage is high vacuously, so no penalty.

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 tests containment of points in a GeoJSON polygon, specifies supported geometry types, and clarifies boundary point handling. It distinctly sets this tool apart from siblings like reverse_geocode or directions.

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 implies usage for pure geometric containment but does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, so guidance is limited.

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