crs_height_transform

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: conversion uses GUGiK's geoid grids, varies by location, depends on PROJ install, and fails with a clear error if grids are missing. This provides excellent transparency about dependencies and error handling.

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 concise (3-4 sentences), front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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 complexity (height conversion with geoid grids) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the purpose, parameters, dependencies, and error behavior, making it complete for effective use.

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%, but the description fully explains all 5 parameters: lon/lat (WGS84/ETRS89 degrees), height (normal height), source/target (either order 'KRON86' or 'EVRF2007-NH'). It adds meaning and constraints 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's purpose: 'Convert a normal height between Poland's Kronsztadt'86 and EVRF2007-NH systems.' It uses a specific verb ('Convert'), a resource ('normal height'), and identifies the exact coordinate systems, distinguishing it from sibling CRS tools.

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 when to use the tool (for height conversion between the two systems) and highlights prerequisites (location needed, PROJ grids), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. This is clear but lacks exclusionary guidance.

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