calculate_geodetic_area

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. However, it only states the operation type without detailing any side effects, coordinate system requirements, or accuracy implications. This leaves significant behavioral unknowns.

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 concise sentence, but it omits critical parameter details that could be added without excessive length. It is not information-dense given the tool's complexity.

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?

Despite having an output schema (which may document return values), the description fails to contextualize parameters or provide usage guidance. For a tool with two parameters and multiple related siblings, this description is notably incomplete.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage for parameters. The description does not clarify the expected format for 'geometry' (e.g., GeoJSON, WKT) or the allowed values for 'ellps' beyond the default WGS84. The agent lacks essential parameter context.

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 ('calculate'), the resource ('area of a polygon'), and the method ('using geodetic calculations'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_area' (planar) and 'calculate_geodetic_distance' (distance).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'get_area'), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage context.

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