transformar_datum

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that it uses official IBGE parameters (R.PR 1/2005) and that the response includes horizontal displacement in meters, which is real added context. It does not, however, state directionality (de/para), accepted input formats, or input validity constraints.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by the useful output note. Nothing redundant, no filler.

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 5-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It partially addresses return behavior (displacement) but leaves the entire parameter surface undocumented, which an agent needs in order to call 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 coverage is 0% across 5 parameters, so the description is the only source of meaning—and it fails to explain them. It never maps 'de'/'para' to source/target datum, never explains the height parameter 'h' (default 0), and gives no hint whether lat/lon are decimal or DMS strings.

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 verb (transforma) and resource (coordenadas geográficas) scoped to exactly two datums, SAD 69 and SIRGAS 2000. This clearly distinguishes it from the UTM-centric siblings (geo_para_utm, utm_para_geo) without the agent needing to open any schema.

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 datum-to-datum scope implies usage, but the description never explicitly says when to pick this over geo_para_utm/utm_para_geo or converter_lote. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated, leaving the agent to infer the boundary between datum transformation and projection conversion.

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