calculate_transmission_lines_intersection_with_wildlife

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns a total in kilometers, but does not clarify what is being overlapped, whether any computations depend on context, whether there are side effects, or what assumptions are made. The description is too minimal to be transparent.

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 one efficient sentence with no filler, and the metric and unit are front-loaded. It is concise, though arguably under-specified; however, as a single-sentence definition it is well-structured and easy to parse.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain the full context of the calculation. It omits the intersection subject (transmission lines with wildlife), the distinction from sibling summary tools, and what 'overlap' precisely means. This leaves too much to inference for an agent to call the tool confidently.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters; it clearly focuses on the output. It does not add any parameter-related meaning, but with 0 params no additional information is required.

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 gives a specific verb ('Return'), a resource ('total transmission-line overlap'), and a unit ('kilometers'), so an agent understands the basic output. However, it does not explicitly mention the 'with wildlife' aspect from the tool name, and the term 'overlap' could be ambiguous without the name, so it is not fully self-contained.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. Since there are alternative summary tools like get_summary_transmission_lines and get_summary_wildlife_lands, the agent is left to infer which one produces the intersection overlap metric.

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