geo_find

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful context: the data source (geo.admin.ch MapServer find), which helps set expectations about the underlying service. It doesn't describe pagination or error behaviors, but for a read-only query tool with solid annotations, this adds appropriate value beyond the structured fields.

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?

Two concise sentences, tightly focused. The first sentence states the purpose; the second provides the key prerequisite (geo_layer_info) and source. Zero filler or redundancy — every sentence earns its place.

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?

Has an output schema, so return-value documentation isn't needed in the description. The 1-parameter nested input with full schema documentation and the geo_layer_info prerequisite cover the essential usage context. It doesn't mention query syntax specifics (wildcards, exact-match behavior), but for a straightforward find tool with an output schema and good annotations, this is reasonably complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description must compensate. It mentions 'by attribute value' and names the data source, but all three parameters (search_field, search_text, limit) are fully described in the schema with examples and defaults. The schema carries the heavy lifting for parameter explanation; the description offers only marginal framing 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?

Clear verb+resource+mechanism: 'Find features on a layer by attribute value' with an explicit backend source (geo.admin.ch MapServer find). The description distinguishes this from siblings like geo_identify (point-based) and geo_zoning_at (location-based) by stating it searches by attribute value. The purpose is fully specific.

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 advises using geo_layer_info first to see queryable fields, providing a clear prerequisite for usage. It identifies the data source context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or name specific alternative tools for exclusion, though the prerequisite guidance is genuinely helpful context.

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