fuso_utm

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does not state that this is a pure/side-effect-free computation, does not give output format (zone number only? hemisphere? central meridian in degrees?), and gives no valid range for the longitude.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which suits a one-parameter utility. It is arguably too terse rather than bloated, but nothing is wasted.

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?

For a minimal one-parameter tool this is close to adequate: the input and the two computed outputs are named. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the missing input format and output encoding leave the agent guessing on details that matter for calling it 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 0% and 'lon' is typed merely as a string with no title or format. The description confirms the parameter is a longitude but does not specify decimal degrees, sign convention, hemisphere handling, or whether a string like '45W' is expected — a real ambiguity given the string type.

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?

States a specific computation: the UTM zone and central meridian for a given longitude, which is distinct from sibling conversion tools like geo_para_utm or utm_para_geo. It names the resource and the returned quantities, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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 indication of when this tool should be chosen over geo_para_utm or utm_para_geo, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage purely from the one-line purpose.

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