qc_gps_accuracy_and_area

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure, but it only states the core function. It does not mention how findings are reported (e.g., output format), edge cases such as rejection or handling of missing coordinates, or any side effects. The schema's x_suso_qc exclusion rules and output contract are part of the schema, not the description, so they don't count toward transparency.

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, focused sentence that gets to the point immediately. It is efficient and readable, though it redundantly includes the tool name as a prefix. Despite the slight redundancy, it conveys the purpose without fluff.

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 the tool's complexity (8 parameters, nested objects, no formal output schema), the description is far too minimal. It does not explain the expected output structure, requirements like export type, or how the flagging results are delivered. The schema provides some context, but the description itself leaves an agent without enough information to confidently invoke the tool correctly.

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 50%, with several parameters (plan, profile, confirm_plan_id, questionnaire_identity) lacking descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides. It does not clarify how rules, thresholds, or variables should be structured beyond the existing schema text, leaving a significant gap in compensating for the uncovered parameters.

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 action ('Flag') and the subject ('low GPS accuracy or coordinates outside expected areas'). It effectively distinguishes this QC tool from siblings like qc_gps_duplicates_and_clusters by focusing specifically on accuracy and area rules, even without explicitly naming alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other QC tools (e.g., qc_gps_duplicates_and_clusters). The description implies the use case but does not state conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent would have to infer when this tool is appropriate without explicit direction.

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