suggest_transformation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it searches multi-step paths, provides accuracy information, and warns about cumulative errors. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what format the suggestions come in. The behavioral disclosure is adequate but incomplete for a tool with complex transformation logic.

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 perfectly front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by specific examples and additional capabilities. Every sentence adds value: the examples clarify scope, and the subsequent sentences explain the search behavior and output characteristics. Zero wasted words.

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 tool with 3 parameters (including a complex nested object), no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides good purpose and usage context but lacks details about the output format, error conditions, or performance characteristics. Given the complexity of coordinate reference system transformations, more behavioral context would be helpful despite the excellent parameter documentation in the schema.

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 meaningful context by explaining that the tool handles specific transformation examples (Tokyo Datum to JGD2011, WGS84 to Plane Rectangular CS) and that location is 'for accuracy improvement', which provides valuable semantic context beyond the schema's technical descriptions.

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 specific verbs ('suggest transformation paths', 'searches multi-step paths', 'provides accuracy info', 'warns about cumulative errors') and resources ('between two CRS'). It explicitly distinguishes its functionality from siblings by focusing on transformation pathfinding rather than comparison, listing, validation, or troubleshooting.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('between two CRS' with examples like 'Tokyo Datum to JGD2011'), but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools. The examples help guide usage, but no explicit exclusions or comparisons to siblings are provided.

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