calculate_distance

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the WGS84 ellipsoid model and return format (meters and miles). However, it omits error handling, input validation, or precision limits. Adequate but not exhaustive.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and provides essential details without any 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?

Given no output schema, the description explains return values (meters and miles). Parameters are fully described in schema. Sibling tools are clearly distinct, and context is complete for this simple calculation tool.

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 baseline is 3. The tool description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions (e.g., does not specify valid coordinate ranges or decimal degree format).

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 it calculates geodesic distance between two points on Earth's surface. It specifies high accuracy using WGS84 ellipsoid, and the purpose is distinct from sibling tools (check_location, enrich_location, find_nearest, list_datasets, spatial_join).

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 mentions 'No dataset needed', implying standalone use, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., spatial_join). There are no exclusions or when-not scenarios.

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