compare_crs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what aspects are compared but doesn't cover behavioral traits such as performance characteristics, error handling, or output format. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves operationally.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently lists comparison aspects in a single sentence, followed by a second sentence on suitability explanation. It avoids redundancy, though it could be slightly more concise by integrating the two sentences.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and parameters but lacks details on behavioral traits and output format. For a comparison tool with 3 parameters and 100% schema coverage, it's minimally viable but incomplete in providing full operational context.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds value by listing the comparison aspects (e.g., datum, projection method) that map to the 'aspects' parameter, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'compare' and the resource 'two CRS', specifying the comparison covers multiple perspectives including datum, projection method, area of use, accuracy, distortion characteristics, compatibility, and use case suitability. It distinguishes from siblings like get_crs_detail (single CRS detail) and recommend_crs (recommendations rather than comparison).

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 implies when to use this tool by stating it 'explains which is better suited for specific purposes,' suggesting it's for comparative analysis. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like get_crs_detail for single CRS information or recommend_crs for recommendations without detailed comparison.

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