calculate_geodetic_point

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states the basic operation, omitting details such as whether the function is read-only, default ellipsoid (WGS84), or units (e.g., azimuth in degrees vs radians). The agent gains minimal insight into behavior beyond the action.

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 with no wasted words. It is appropriately short for a straightforward calculation tool, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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 complexity (4 params, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain input coordinate system, units, or output format. An output schema exists but the description offers no additional context for correct invocation.

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%, so description must compensate. It mentions 'distance' and 'azimuth' but omits 'start_point' (what format? likely [longitude, latitude]) and 'ellps' (default WGS84). The description adds little meaning beyond the schema.

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 computes a point from distance and azimuth. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'calculate_geodetic_distance' and 'calculate_geodetic_area'. However, it does not explicitly mention that the calculation is on an ellipsoid, which is implied by the tool name.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., buffer, project_geometry). The description lacks context for when this specific geodetic calculation is appropriate.

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