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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, openWorld=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false. The description adds useful context by specifying it resolves to official municipality data and cites 'latest BFS figure', so an agent understands the freshness of the result. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first defines scope and outputs, the second gives concrete query examples. Every clause contributes.

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?

The tool is simple, has rich annotations, an output schema, and a well-documented parameter. The main gap is that 'place' is optional in the schema but the description does not say what happens when it is omitted or defaulted to null.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single 'place' parameter, including examples like 'Genf' and '8003'. The description itself adds no new parameter detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 names the specific action 'Resolve a Swiss place to its official municipality' and enumerates concrete outputs: BFS number, canton, district, postcodes, population, and website. This makes it clearly distinct from siblings like current_weather and company_register.

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 gives explicit use cases: 'how many people live in X', 'which canton is X in', and finding a municipality's website. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name an alternative, so it falls just short of a 5.

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