crs_detect_zone_2000

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains behavior: uses 3-degree strips, returns zone covering lon or bbox center, includes zones_touched and warning for boundary straddling. Missing explicit read-only statement, but overall transparent.

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?

Three concise sentences, each serving a purpose: first states purpose, second explains input, third details output and recommendations. No redundant or vague wording. Front-loaded with key 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?

For a simple zone detection tool, description covers inputs, behavior, outputs, and edge-case handling (bbox straddling). Output schema exists but description already explains output fields adequately. No gaps given 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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage (no schema descriptions for lon/bbox). Description adds full meaning: lon is 'a single longitude in degrees', bbox is '[xmin, ymin, xmax, ymax] in degrees (EPSG:4326)'. This compensates completely for schema gaps.

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?

Description states 'Pick the right PUWG 2000 (CS2000) zone for a longitude or area.' The verb 'pick' and resource 'zone' clearly define the action and object. It distinguishes from sibling CRS tools (e.g., crs_list_polish, crs_transform_point) by focusing specifically on zone detection.

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?

Description explicitly tells when to use by specifying input options ('Pass either `lon` or `bbox`') and provides guidance for edge cases ('data spanning zones should usually be reprojected'). It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives among siblings, but context is clear.

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