Lecture d’un objet WFS par identifiant

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world hints. The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: strict cardinality guarantee (error on zero or multiple results) and the behavior of 'result_type="request"'. No contradictions.

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 three sentences, each adding significant value. Front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage context, then special behavior. No redundant or irrelevant text.

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 high schema coverage, complete annotations, and no output schema, the description still explains return types (FeatureCollection for results, request URL for request) and error behavior. It covers all necessary aspects for correct tool usage.

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?

All parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds extra meaning: 'select' is a list of non-geometric properties, and geometry is automatically added when result_type='request'. This goes beyond the base schema.

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 'Récupère' (retrieve) and the resource 'objet WFS' with specific parameters 'typename' and 'feature_id'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by stating it is the robust path when a feature_ref is already available from other tools.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool ('quand vous disposez déjà d'une feature_ref') and provides an alternative use case with 'result_type="request"' for debugging or visualization. It contrasts with other tools mentioned in context.

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