Calculate Destination

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that the tool works offline without API calls and uses straight-line geographic offset, which is valuable context beyond annotations.

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 three sentences with no fluff. The primary purpose is stated first, followed by use cases and an important caveat (no road-network). Every sentence earns its place.

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 output schema exists, the description adequately covers purpose, behavior, and offline capability. It could mention that coordinates are in decimal degrees or WGS84, but the schema already specifies numeric ranges. Overall, sufficient for the tool's complexity.

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%, and the description reinforces bearing direction and units but does not add new meaning beyond the schema descriptions. Baseline score 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 the tool calculates a destination point from origin, bearing, and distance using geodesic straight-line offset. It provides concrete examples like 'find a point 5km north of X' and contrasts with road-network distance, distinguishing it from sibling tools like distance_tool or 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?

The description gives explicit use cases (search offsets, waypoints) and clarifies that it does not compute road-network distances. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool in favor of siblings like nearest_point_tool or map_matching_tool, leaving some ambiguity.

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