validate_crs_usage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool 'detects' issues and 'provides improvement suggestions', which implies a read-only analysis function, but does not disclose behavioral traits like error handling, performance characteristics, rate limits, or authentication needs. For a validation tool with complex location input, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the core function, and the second enumerates detection capabilities. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and avoids redundancy. However, it could be slightly more concise by integrating the detection list more seamlessly.

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 (3 parameters with nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is moderately complete. It covers the what and why of validation but lacks details on output format, error cases, or limitations. Without annotations or output schema, the agent has insufficient information to fully understand the tool's behavior and results.

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%, providing detailed documentation for all parameters. The description adds marginal value by contextualizing the parameters ('for a specific purpose and location') and hinting at the validation logic (e.g., distortion issues relate to 'purpose'), but does not explain parameter interactions or provide syntax examples beyond what the schema already specifies.

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 specific action ('validate whether a CRS is appropriate'), the resource ('a CRS'), and the scope ('for a specific purpose and location'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on validation rather than comparison, recommendation, or listing, and explicitly lists the types of issues it detects (deprecated usage, distortion, zone selection).

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 usage context through the listed detection capabilities (e.g., 'inappropriate zone selection for surveying'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'recommend_crs' or 'compare_crs'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer appropriate scenarios from the purpose parameter's enum values.

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