utm_para_geo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only names the inputs and the output pair. It says nothing about the default datum SIRGAS2000 and its effect on results, hemisphere defaulting to S, valid fuso range, input units, output precision, or failure modes for out-of-range coordinates.

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, stating inputs then output. It is efficient, though its brevity is part of why semantics and behavior go unexplained.

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?

Five parameters with zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema leave the description responsible for explaining defaults, units and return format — none of which it does. An agent can guess the call shape but not the correct values or expected result.

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% — all five parameters have only bare titles. The description names four (E, N, fuso, hemisfério) but adds no semantics: no units for E/N, no fuso range, no accepted hemisphere or datum values, and the datum parameter is not mentioned at all despite materially changing the output.

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 and resource: converting UTM coordinates (E, N, fuso, hemisfério) into latitude/longitude. The direction of conversion implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling geo_para_utm, but the sibling is never named and the tool name alone would be ambiguous to a non-Portuguese reader.

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 to use this versus geo_para_utm, transformar_datum, or converter_lote, and no prerequisites stated (e.g. that the source datum must be known or that inputs are in metres). The agent must infer the workflow entirely from the name.

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