Swiss place facts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safe read-only nature is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it returns the 'latest BFS figure' and resolves to 'official municipality' data, clarifying that results are standardized and current. It does not discuss edge cases like ambiguous place names, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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 and every part earns its place: a clear capability statement, an explicit list of returned fields, and concrete example use cases. It is front-loaded with the core action and output list before the usage examples.

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 single-optional-parameter lookup tool with a rich parameter schema, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description covers what the tool does, what it returns, and when to invoke it. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and call it correctly.

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%, and the parameter's schema already explains accepted forms ('Lugano', '8003', 'Genf', 'Bahnhofstrasse 1, Zürich') and languages. The tool description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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?

Description states a specific action ('Resolve a Swiss place to its official municipality') and a concrete resource, then enumerates the exact outputs: BFS number, canton, district, postcodes, population, and website. It also gives representative queries, making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_official_info.

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 explicitly lists trigger questions: 'how many people live in X', 'which canton is X in', and finding a municipality's website, which tells an agent when to use it. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the provided use cases are sufficient for a single-purpose lookup tool.

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