resolve_municipality

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

Annotations already establish the operation as read-only and idempotent. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations, including the exact URI format ('ld.admin.ch/municipality/<BFS>') and the BFS number's role as a universal identifier. No contradiction exists.

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 and well-structured: a clear first sentence states the purpose, a short paragraph provides contextual significance, and an Args list documents parameters. Every sentence earns its place with 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?

For a simple resolution tool with read-only annotations and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, parameter semantics, and contextual significance. The presence of an output schema means return values need not be detailed in the description.

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 schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description's Args section is essential. It fully explains name_or_bfs with examples ("Zürich" or "261") and clarifies that language specifies the language for the name, compensating completely for the schema's lack of detail.

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's function: 'Resolve a Swiss municipality to its LINDAS URI and BFS number.' This provides a specific verb and outcome, and it is distinct from sibling tools like search_cubes or query_cube_observations, which focus on data cubes rather than municipality resolution.

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 explains the BFS number as the join key across the portfolio, strongly implying when to use this tool for cross-tool consistency. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion scenarios, but the context is clear enough to guide an agent.

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