get_crs_detail

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what information is returned but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential error conditions (e.g., invalid codes), performance characteristics, or authentication needs. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 appropriately concise and front-loaded, stating the core purpose in the first sentence and listing included details efficiently. Every sentence adds value by specifying the scope of information retrieved. Minor improvement could be made by structuring it more explicitly, but it's largely waste-free.

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 low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers what the tool does but lacks completeness in behavioral aspects and usage context. For a read operation with good schema coverage, this is acceptable but leaves room for improvement in guiding the agent effectively.

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?

The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the input schema provides. Since schema description coverage is 100% (the 'code' parameter is well-documented in the schema), the baseline score is 3. The description doesn't compensate with additional context like format examples or usage tips, but it doesn't need to given the schema's completeness.

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 with a specific verb ('Get detailed information') and resource ('for a specific EPSG code'), and lists the types of information included (datum, projection method, area of use, accuracy characteristics, intended use cases). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_crs' or 'list_crs_by_region' that might also retrieve CRS information, which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools such as 'search_crs' for broader queries or 'validate_crs_usage' for validation purposes. This lack of contextual usage information leaves the agent without clear direction.

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