bakom_glasfaser_verfuegbarkeit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context (data source: BAKOM Breitbandatlas via geo.admin.ch with 250×250m resolution), enhancing transparency beyond 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 concise: two sentences plus a schema block. It is well-structured, front-loads the purpose, and every element adds 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?

For a simple query tool, the description covers key aspects: data source, resolution, output schema (provided in description), and technology details. It lacks explicit handling of missing data but the output schema indicates nullable fields, so it's adequate.

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 already provides descriptions for latitude, longitude, and response_format. The description restates 'Standortkoordinaten WGS84 + Ausgabeformat' without adding new meaning. Given that schema description coverage is reported as 0% (likely a metric limitation), but actual schema descriptions are present, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 checks Glasfaserverfügbarkeit (FTTB/FTTH) for a Swiss location, using specific technology terms and distinguishing it from siblings like bakom_mobilfunk_abdeckung or bakom_broadband_coverage.

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 specifies the tool's purpose and context (Swiss location, BAKOM data), providing clear usage guidance. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the context is sufficient.

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