os_features_wfs_archive_capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: the operation is 'entitlement dependent', alerting the agent to a prerequisite not visible in the schema or 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?

The description is one short sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, with no filler or redundant wording. 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?

The presence of an output schema and strong annotations helps, but the description leaves key context unaddressed: parameter meanings, when to use this versus the non-archive WFS capabilities tool, and what 'entitlement dependent' implies operationally. It is minimally viable but has clear gaps.

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 0%, and the description provides no explanation for any of the four parameters. 'version', 'delivery', and 'inlineMaxBytes' are left completely undocumented; 'delivery' in particular is ambiguous despite its enum values. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter 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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and a specific resource ('WFS archive GetCapabilities'), and the 'archive' qualifier distinguishes this from the sibling os_features_wfs_capabilities. It is immediately clear what operation this tool performs.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is provided beyond the resource name itself. The description does not mention alternatives, does not contrast with the non-archive WFS capabilities sibling, and only hints at an entitlement prerequisite without explaining why or when it matters.

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