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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds real value by specifying the returned metadata and asserting that it is AUTHORITATIVE for resolution semantics and file-split conventions used in asset names.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and return fields, followed by the authoritative-content note and the id-source pointer. No wasted text.

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 read-only single-parameter tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains what is returned and why the result is authoritative. The main minor gap is error behavior for an invalid id.

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%, so the parameter is already well documented. The description goes beyond the schema by directing the agent to meteoswiss_collections for valid collection_id values, which is useful provenance not present in the schema itself.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — full detail for one data.geo.admin.ch collection — and enumerates the returned fields (title, description, licence, providers, extent, asset keys). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling catalog tool by noting that valid ids come from meteoswiss_collections.

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?

Clearly positions itself as the detail lookup once an id is known, and explicitly names meteoswiss_collections as the source of valid ids. It does not state when not to use it or mention meteoswiss_search as an alternative, but the workflow context is clear.

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