Transform coordinates between systems

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It discloses the axis order (x=easting, y=northing with latitude/longitude clarifications) and names the backing service (Kartverket's transformer), which is useful. However, it does not state what the tool returns, whether it is read-only, error behaviors, or rate limits. Core conversion behavior is implied but incomplete for an agent that has no prior knowledge.

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 with no redundancy. The first sentence states the purpose and service, the second gives axis order and common codes. It front-loads the core action and packs essential usage details efficiently. Every word earns its place.

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 coordinate transformation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides essential input guidance (axis order, EPSG codes) but omits the return format. An agent would not know whether the result is in the same axis order, what the output structure is, or how errors are surfaced. The description is adequate for invoking but incomplete for interpreting the response, especially given the lack of output 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 coverage is 100% with each parameter described, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explicitly explaining the axis order convention (easting/longitude for x, northing/latitude for y) and providing a list of common EPSG codes with their axis orientation. This helps the agent choose correct values and understand coordinate system nuances not fully captured in the schema's short 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 converts a coordinate between reference systems using Kartverket's transformer. It names the specific resource and operation, and differentiates from all siblings, none of which perform coordinate transformation. The inclusion of common EPSG codes further clarifies scope.

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 instructions on how to call the tool (give EPSG codes, correct axis order) but does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives. There are no similar sibling tools, so lack of alternative guidance is not critical, but the dimension asks for explicit when-to-use context. It implies usage for any coordinate conversion need but does not state exclusions or conditions.

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