zefix_list_municipalities

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

With readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint all set, the annotations already cover the mutation and safety side. The description adds critical behavioral detail: `legalSeatId` matches the BFS-ID column, not the internal ID, values overlap so the wrong ID silently produces a real but wrong municipality, and the tool performs the resolution itself. It also states 'genau eine Gemeinde' for legal_seat_id and '~2.100 Gemeinden' without filters. The only real gap is the unspecified precedence when both `legal_seat_id` and `canton` are passed.

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: a one-line purpose, a necessary warning paragraph, then a compact Args/Returns section. The longer warning is fully justified because it prevents a silently incorrect lookup, and no sentences are wasted. The formatting with backticks and line breaks makes it easy to scan.

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?

With an output schema present, the description does not need to enumerate the return values in detail, but custom level covers name, canton, BFS-ID and Handelsregisterkreis-ID anyway. It handles the main semantic trap, and it outlines the behavior for the relevant input patterns. It is not complete on the boundary case of combining `legal_seat_id` and `canton`, and it could better point to the sibling tools that produce produce `legalSeatId` (zefix_get_company, zefix_search_companies).

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 already describes each nested parameter, so the description does not need to start from zero. It adds value with the concrete warning about BFS-ID vs ID, the 'genau eine Gemeinde' consequence, and the meaningful examples for `canton`. The only missing semantic layer is explanation of parameter compatibility or precedence when multiple arguments are provided at once.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb and resource: 'Listet Schweizer Gemeinden auf und löst die `legalSeatId` einer Firma auf.' It also immediately distinguishes the critical semantic mismatch between BFS-ID and internal ID, which makes the tool's purpose much clearer. This separates it naturally from sibling tools that focus on companies rather than on the lookup/resolution side.

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 provides concrete context about parameter usage: legal_seat_id resolves exactly one Gemeinde, canton filters the list, and no filter returns about 2,100 municipalities. But it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over its siblings, nor 'when not to use it'. It also leaves ambiguous how `canton` and `legal_seat_id` should be combined if an agent passes both.

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