get_qibla_direction

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral transparency. It states what is returned (bearing and cardinal direction) but does not disclose behavior for missing/invalid coordinates, whether coordinates are required, or any limitations. For a simple read-only calculation, this is moderate but not comprehensive.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It precisely conveys the core action and output in minimal words, earning a perfect conciseness score.

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 tool has no output schema, so the description should specify the return structure. It mentions 'bearing in degrees and 16-point cardinal direction' but not whether the return is a string, object, or array. It also omits edge-case handling for optional parameters (default null) and invalid inputs, leaving the agent with ambiguity.

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%, so the description must compensate. However, it does not explicitly mention that the tool uses latitude and longitude as inputs or explain their roles. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantic value beyond the schema, failing to bridge the coverage gap.

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 specific verb 'Return', the resource 'Qibla bearing', and the output details (degrees and 16-point cardinal direction) toward the Kaaba. This uniquely distinguishes it from all sibling tools, none of which mention Qibla direction.

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 purpose is clear, so usage is implicitly inferred (use when Qibla direction is needed), but the description provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. There are no alternatives mentioned, but that's acceptable given the tool's uniqueness. However, it does not state prerequisites like 'requires valid coordinates'.

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