swiss_geo_get_wmts_tile_url

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. It doesn't mention that this generates a URL for use in map libraries (e.g., Leaflet), no mention of coordinate system/projection assumptions (e.g., which grid the x/y tiles assume), rate limits, or whether the URL requires an API key. Given the tool generates an external service URL with several implicit dependencies, this is a notable transparency 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?

A single well-formed sentence that conveys the tool's purpose efficiently. No wasted words, though the sentence is a bit generic since it adds little beyond the tool name itself.

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 generates an external tile URL with implicit dependencies (WMTS base URL, tile grid/CRS convention, layer parameter nuances, potential API key requirement—note a sibling 'swiss_set_api_key' exists). No output schema means the description should clarify the URL format/template this returns. For a tool that depends on external service configuration, the description lacks essential operational context.

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 75% (3 of 4 params documented: x, y, z described as 'Tile X', 'Tile Y', 'Zoom level'; only 'layer' gains meaningful enum context). However, the description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. The x/y tile coordinates have subtle WMTS conventions (which zoom origin/CRS, e.g., Web Mercator vs LV95) that go unexplained. Baseline 3 is appropriate given decent schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Generate a swisstopo WMTS tile URL for map display', clearly identifying it as the official Swiss national map tool among many swiss_geo siblings. It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the 'official Swiss national map' scoping helps distinguish from location search, elevation, canton identification, etc.

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 'map display' as purpose context but provides no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or exclusions. Among the geo tools (search location, elevation, identify canton/municipality, convert coordinates), the WMTS tile URL function's distinct purpose is implied by the 'map display' phrase, but no alternatives are named or contrasted.

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