Boundary check

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

The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it discloses antimeridian handling and explains the RFC 7946 convention that minLng > maxLng when a bounding box crosses the antimeridian. With readOnlyHint and idempotentHint already covering safety and repeatability, this extra geometric nuance is the key behavioral disclosure needed.

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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the supported operations and then immediately address the trickiest edge case. No filler; every sentence earns its place.

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 no output schema, a brief note on return values could help, but the description covers the operations, input expectations (lat/lng points), and a critical geometric edge case. It is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly without needing more.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description restates the coordinate format and adds antimeridian semantics, but does not add significant parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names three specific geometric operations (point-in-polygon, convex hull, bounding box) on lat/lng points. It distinguishes itself from siblings like distance_matrix or cluster_points by focusing on boundary/geometry operations rather than routing or clustering.

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 implied through the operation names and the schema, but the description does not explicitly state when to choose one operation over another or provide guidance beyond what's in the enum description. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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