Geodetic Equivalents

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds genuinely useful operational context: the POST /v1/geodetic endpoint and a 10-credit Tier 1 cost. It does not add anything about calculation assumptions or output shape, but with annotations present the bar is lower.

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?

One front-loaded sentence states the core transformation, followed by compact bracketed metadata lines (group, endpoint, required params, cost). No filler, though the metadata block is terse field-label style rather than prose.

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 described, and the cost/endpoint context is helpful. However, with 0% schema description coverage across 5 parameters (three of them optional and undocumented), the definition is not complete enough for an agent to call this correctly in non-default cases.

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 there are 5 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It names the two required inputs and references the Sepharial method, but leaves 'year', 'obliquity', and the 'johndro' enum alternative completely unexplained, so an agent cannot tell when or how to use the optional inputs.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: convert geographic coordinates into geodetic chart degrees, with the Sepharial mapping explained ('each longitude maps to a zodiac degree on the Earth's surface'). An agent can distinguish it from siblings like geo_relocation or geo_acg, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied by the domain phrasing and the bracketed [Required: latitude, longitude] / [Cost] metadata. There is no statement of when to pick this over geo_local_space, geo_parans, or geo_acg, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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