coordinate_convert

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the conversion target (GCJ02) and supported input systems, which is useful. However, it does not mention output format, error behavior, or whether the operation is read-only (likely but not stated). For a simple conversion tool this is acceptable, but richer context (e.g., 'returns JSON with converted coordinates') would improve 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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose and scope. Every word earns its place; no fluff or repetition. It is concise yet informative.

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 simplicity and rich schema, the description is mostly complete. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not explain the return format (e.g., converted coordinates as a string or JSON). It also omits the 40-point batch limit, though that is in the schema. An agent would benefit from knowing what the response looks like, so completeness is adequate but not excellent.

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% and includes detailed parameter descriptions (e.g., coordsys enum meanings, locations format and 40-point limit). The tool description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides, so it neither compensates nor adds value. 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 clearly states the tool's function: converting coordinates from other systems (GPS, Baidu, Mapbar) to the AMap GCJ02 system. It uses a specific verb ('convert'), identifies the resource ('coordinates'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like geocoding or routing.

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 when to use the tool: when you have coordinates in a non-GCJ02 system and need GCJ02. It lists supported source systems, but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state conditions such as 'use this instead of search_poi when you need coordinate conversion'. Context is clear, but no explicit when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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