check_geospatial

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses detection methods (by name or range), specific flags (out-of-range, Null Island, tiny-bbox), and output details (bbox, center, spread, distinct geographies). It does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only, but the actions described (detect, validate, flag, report) imply non-mutating behavior.

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 concise, with the main purpose in the first line and supporting details following. It is well-structured and every sentence adds value. The use of bullet points in the second paragraph improves readability without being verbose.

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 covers detection, validation checks, and reported outputs well. Since an output schema exists, return values are likely documented there. However, it omits explanation of the optional parameters and does not explicitly state usage scenarios, leaving some contextual gaps.

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. It mentions auto-detection but does not explain the optional lat_col and lon_col parameters, leaving their purpose ambiguous. The description could have clarified that these allow overriding the auto-detection, but it does not.

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's function: 'Auto-detect lat/lon columns and validate ranges.' It specifies the resource (geospatial data) and the specific actions (detect, validate, flag, report). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_outliers or check_temporal, which have different focus areas.

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 geospatial data quality validation by mentioning detection, range checking, and spatial reports. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance.

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