swiss_geo_convert_coordinates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, but no behavioral details are disclosed beyond the basic action. It doesn't warn about network dependency on the REFRAME service, potential latency, error conditions, or whether conversions are reversible/precise. As a read-only conversion tool this is less critical, but there's little added behavioral context beyond stating the service source.

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?

Single clear sentence that efficiently captures the tool's purpose and confirms the official source. No wasted words. Could optionally add usage context, but as a purpose statement it is tight and well-structured.

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 conversion tool with 4 straightforward params, 2 enums, and no output schema, the description is functional but lean. It doesn't explain return format (which coordinate values are returned, order, or units) nor the axis ordering caveat between Swiss northing/easting and WGS84 lat/lng. Given no output schema exists, some note about the response shape would improve completeness. Parameter definitions carry partial meaning via schema descriptions.

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 50% — the two system parameters have enums (self-documenting), but coord1 and coord2 have partial descriptions ('lat for WGS84, northing for Swiss'). The description doesn't add meaningful parameter context beyond what the schema provides, such as formatting requirements, decimal precision, or axis ordering. The schema partially documents parameters; description adds minimal extra value.

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 verb ('Convert') with a clear resource ('coordinates') across three named systems (LV95, LV03, WGS84) and specifies the reference service (swisstopo REFRAME). It clearly distinguishes from sibling geo tools like search_location, get_elevation, and identify_canton, all of which do different things.

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 implies conversion use-cases but doesn't explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives or name specific sibling tools. It mentions the official service as a differentiator, but there are no exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance. No guidance on which input format pairs are valid (e.g., WGS84 requires lat/lng whereas Swiss systems use northing/easting).

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