bak_search_isos

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context by explaining the search operation, data source (BAK via geo.admin.ch), and return format. It does not contradict annotations and provides sufficient transparency for a safe read-only query.

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 clear introduction, background context, and formatted Args/Returns sections. It is slightly verbose (e.g., the ISOS background), but every part serves a purpose. The front-loading of the main purpose is effective.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values exhaustively, but it does list key fields. The tool's input and output are well-covered. However, it lacks comparison with siblings and could mention query constraints (e.g., minimum length, which is in schema but not in 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 description lists both parameters (query and limit) with their types and meanings, adding a default value for limit (20) and an example query value. While the schema also provides descriptions, the tool description's structured 'Args' section adds clarity and compensates for the 0% schema coverage signal.

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 that the tool searches for ISOS townscapes by place name. It specifies the resource (ISOS-Ortsbilder) and the action (search). Compared to siblings like 'bak_isos_by_kanton' (filter by canton) and 'bak_get_isos_detail' (get detail), this tool's purpose of searching by name is distinct and well-defined.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It neither mentions conditions for use nor advises when to use other tools like 'bak_isos_by_kanton' for canton-based filtering. The user must infer usage context from the tool's name alone.

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