bag_health_mcp__get_canton_situation

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that it aggregates several series and gracefully handles missing series (reports per-disease status instead of failure). This provides valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 well-structured with a clear main sentence, followed by a use_case block, an important_notes block, and an example. Each segment adds unique value without 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?

Given the output schema exists (not shown but present), the description need not detail return values. It covers purpose, typical usage, error handling, and provides an example. It is complete enough for the tool's complexity, though it could explicitly mention the 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions the 'canton' parameter in the example and notes it defaults to 'ZH', but does not explain the format or list valid values. The 'include_wastewater' parameter is mentioned but not explained at all. This is insufficient for a low-coverage scenario.

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 explicitly states the tool gets a public health situation overview for a canton or Switzerland, combining incidence data for specific diseases (influenza, measles, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools by positioning itself as a one-call aggregated overview versus more granular series queries.

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 includes a use_case tag targeting school authorities and city administration, and notes it avoids orchestrating multiple series queries. It provides an example query in German. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, but the sibling tool list and context imply its role.

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