Calculate Bearing

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds the specific bearing output format (0°=North, etc.) and offline capability, which provide some behavioral context beyond annotations but no mention of error handling or precision.

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 sentences cover purpose, output format, and a key advantage (offline). No wasted words; every sentence adds value. Front-loaded with the core action.

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 tool's simplicity (two required params, no enums) and the presence of an output schema (not repeated in description), the description is complete. It explains the return unit and offline capability, leaving no obvious gaps.

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 100% with full type and bound descriptions. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides; it only restates the general purpose. Baseline of 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?

The description clearly states 'Calculate the bearing (compass direction) from one point to another' with specific verb and resource. It also explains the output format (degrees with cardinal directions), distinguishing it from sibling tools like distance_tool and directions_tool.

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?

It mentions 'Works offline without API calls', providing a usage advantage, but offers no explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives among siblings (e.g., directions_tool for complex routes). The usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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