swiss_health_get_versorgungsatlas

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It describes the data source (BAG + Swiss Health Observatory) which is useful credibility context. It doesn't disclose whether results are read-only (likely implied as a GET), data freshness, language availability, or any rate limits/pagination behavior. For a read operation the transparency is arguably adequate but thin.

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?

One concise sentence plus a source attribution. Every element earns its place: the action, the scope, and the data authority. Zero wasted words.

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 simple 1-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, the description is reasonably complete. However, no output schema exists, so the description could help by describing what the response looks like (e.g., data per canton, JSON format). Also, with health data, output format/unit expectations matter. The description doesn't address this gap.

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 100% with a single indicator parameter that has a description with examples. The description adds the '100+ indicators by canton' context which helps frame what the parameter means. The description and schema together reasonably convey parameter semantics for a single-parameter tool.

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 it gets Swiss Health Atlas data covering health indicators by canton with a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like swiss_health_search_datasets by focusing on the Versorgungsatlas specifically. However, '100+ health indicators' is a reasonable scope statement, though it doesn't name the specific dataset structure, so it's clear but slightly under-specified for a data retrieval tool.

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 on when to use this vs alternatives. With siblings like swiss_health_get_dataset and swiss_health_search_datasets, there's no explicit differentiation on which to pick. The description doesn't state whether this is for the Versorgungsatlas specifically vs general Swiss data, so an agent would not know if this or swiss_health_get_dataset is the right call.

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