bak_get_isos_detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds that the tool returns a JSON with all attributes and a direct link to GISOS documentation, which provides some behavioral context but does not go beyond what annotations already imply.

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 moderately sized with two paragraphs. The main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence. The Args/Returns section provides structured detail. Minor redundancy in restating the feature_id description. Overall, every sentence contributes value.

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?

The description is complete for a simple tool with one required parameter. It explains input source, return format, and key attributes. The output schema exists (not shown but noted true) and is supplemented by the description. Sibling tools are listed, providing context. No gaps evident.

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?

With only one parameter (params) containing one property (feature_id), the description explains where the feature_id comes from and what the return fields include. This compensates for the schema's minimal description (0% coverage). The description adds meaningful guidance beyond the schema structure.

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 the tool's purpose: retrieving complete details of an ISOS Ortbild using a feature ID. It uses a specific verb ('ruft ab') and resource ('vollständige Details eines ISOS-Ortsbildes'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like bak_search_isos (search) and bak_isos_by_kanton (list by canton).

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 a clear usage guideline by specifying that the feature_id comes from results of bak_search_isos or bak_isos_by_kanton. This tells the agent how to obtain the required input. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives within the same family.

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