Lecture d’un objet WFS par identifiant

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds unique behavioral details: strict cardinality guarantee (error on zero or multiple results) and the effect of result_type on output. 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?

Three sentences, each providing essential info: core action, usage context with sibling references, cardinality guarantee, and additional result_type guidance. No redundancy.

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?

Covers main aspects: purpose, usage context, cardinality, result_type usage. Lacks explicit mention of output format for 'results' (FeatureCollection) but it is implied and described. Enough for a focused retrieval tool without output schema.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context: clarifies 'sans filtre attributaire ni spatial' (no filters) and explains the result_type enum and select behavior (geometry auto-added for request).

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 'Récupère exactement un objet WFS' and specifies the parameters (typename, feature_id) and the absence of filters, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like gpf_wfs_get_features that retrieve multiple objects.

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?

Explicitly says when to use: when you already have a feature_ref from another tool, and warns about strict cardinality (error on zero or multiple results). It also explains when to use result_type='request' for debugging or visualization.

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