zefix_list_municipalities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, so the description doesn't need to repeat those. It adds value by explaining the mapping of internal legalSeatId to municipality names, which is a behavioral aspect not covered by 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 brief introductory paragraph followed by Args and Returns sections. It is concise but could be slightly more streamlined; the mapping note adds some length but is justified.

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 tool's low complexity, the description covers the purpose, parameters, and return value adequately. Annotations provide safety context, and the description adds the mapping functionality. No gaps.

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 description barely adds information beyond the input schema, which already documents both parameters (canton and response_format) with similar descriptions. Schema coverage is high in terms of individual parameter descriptions, so the tool description offers limited additional semantic value.

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 it lists Swiss municipalities with BFS-ID and commercial register district, using a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools that deal with companies, as all siblings are company-related.

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 indicates it's useful for geographical analyses and reports, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. However, the sibling tools are clearly different, making the usage context fairly clear.

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