geo_convert_coordinates

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the data source (swisstopo reframe service) and the easting/northing conventional mapping, which adds some context. However, it doesn't disclose output format, error behavior, or accuracy/precision details. With readOnlyHint=true covering the read-only nature, a 3 is appropriate.

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 concise sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second clarifies the critical easting/northing mapping detail for WGS84 direction. No redundant phrasing.

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?

The operation is a simple stateless coordinate conversion with clear annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=false). The description plus schema fully cover what the agent needs. The easting/northing mapping clarification and data source reference are valuable additions. An output schema exists, so return format details are not the description's burden.

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% for the top-level 'params' parameter, but the nested schema fields (easting, northing, direction) each have thorough descriptions explaining the LV95 vs WGS84 duality. The description adds the critical clarification that for wgs84_to_lv95, easting=longitude and northing=latitude, which complements the schema. Since the schema itself is rich, the description's incremental value is moderate — a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Convert coordinates between WGS84 (lon/lat) and LV95'. Clearly distinguishes from siblings — none of the sibling tools (geo_search_layers, geo_height, geo_identify, etc.) deal with coordinate conversion, so this tool's purpose is unambiguous.

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 explains the direction semantics ('for wgs84_to_lv95, easting=longitude and northing=latitude') and names the data source, providing clear operational context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs an alternative or mention exclusions/limitations (e.g., no elevation handling — which is covered by sibling geo_height). Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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