bakom_frequenzdaten

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds context about using the BAKOM layer via geo.admin.ch, which is useful for understanding data source, but does not disclose other behavioral traits like rate limits or data freshness. The description does not contradict 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, starting with a clear purpose, followed by data source, then clearly labeled Args and Returns sections, and an inline output schema. It is slightly verbose with some redundancy (e.g., 'Zeigt...' similar to first sentence), but overall efficient and front-loaded with key information.

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 read-only query tool with good annotations and an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what it returns (frequencies, type, operator), the input (coordinates + format), and data source. It does not cover edge cases or empty results, but with the output schema and annotations, the agent has enough to use the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema provides detailed descriptions for latitude, longitude, and response_format, including examples and bounds. The description only mentions 'Standortkoordinaten WGS84 + Format' at a high level. Since schema_description_coverage is effectively high (the schema gives rich parameter info), the baseline is 3, and the description does not add significant value beyond that.

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 tool queries UKW radio and TV transmission sites for a specific location, using a specific verb ('abfragen') and resource ('Sendeanlagen'). It distinguishes itself by focusing on location-based frequency data, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like bakom_sendeanlagen_suche or bakom_rtv_suche.

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. The description only states what the tool does without any when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite information, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name and siblings.

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