swiss_geo_find_layer_features

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description reveals nothing about return format, whether results are paginated, how the limit parameter behaves, error behaviors for invalid layer IDs, or any rate limits or setup requirements (notably there's a sibling swiss_set_api_key suggesting an API key may be required, but this isn't mentioned). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a notable gap.

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 a single concise sentence that efficiently captures the tool's purpose. It's appropriately minimal with no wasted words. The only slight gap is that it could mention the requirement of required parameters or point to setup requirements, but for length versus information, it's well-balanced.

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?

Given this is a search tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description should explain what kind of results are returned and how to use the parameters effectively. The description provides none of this. There is no mention of result format, the relationship between search_text and search_field, how limit affects output, or what constitutes a valid layer ID beyond the two examples given. The presence of a sibling swiss_set_api_key suggests setup is needed but this isn't communicated.

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 75%, with three of four parameters having descriptions (layer, search_text, search_field). The description adds the context that layer IDs are swisstopo layer identifiers with examples, which adds some value. However, the 'limit' parameter lacks a schema description and the tool description doesn't clarify its semantics (default, max, behavior). The description doesn't significantly enhance understanding beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly states the action (search features) and the resource (swisstopo map layer) with explicit examples of content types (streets, buildings, stations). It distinguishes reasonably from sibling geo tools which cover search_location, elevation, canton/municipality identification, and coordinate conversion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the more general swiss_geo_search_location or the swisstopo-specific siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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 the tool is used for text-based feature search within specific map layer IDs, which is clear enough context. However, it provides no explicit 'when to use vs when not to use' guidance or alternatives. The examples of layer IDs in the schema help establish usage context, but there's no direct guidance about when alternative tools like swiss_geo_search_location might be preferable.

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