swiss_geo_identify_canton

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether boundary lookups are approximate, what happens for points near borders or outside Swiss territory, whether it handles lakes/exclaves, or what the output format looks like. Given geo boundary identification has edge cases, 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?

A single efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose with no waste. It could be structured to include more behavioral detail, but for pure conciseness it's appropriately brief and front-loaded with the verb and resource.

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 geo-lookup tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. It doesn't cover boundary edge cases, out-of-Switzerland behavior, return format, or the relationship to the sibling municipality-identification tool. Given the tool's moderate complexity (coordinate-to-administrative-unit mapping), more context would be valuable.

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%, with both lat and lng documented. The description doesn't add parameter detail beyond the schema (e.g., valid ranges for Swiss coordinates, whether lat/lng order matters), but the schema already covers the basics, 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?

The description clearly states the verb (identify), resource (canton), and target (a coordinate). It distinguishes from siblings like swiss_geo_identify_municipality, which identifies a different administrative unit. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other geo-lookup tools in the group, making the distinction implicit rather than explicit.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as swiss_geo_identify_municipality or swiss_geo_search_location. The description doesn't state prerequisites (e.g., coordinate format, required projection) or exclusions. The usage context is implied by the name and description but not explicitly stated.

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