geo_layer_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it returns plain-text legend and queryable fields, which is some additional context, though it doesn't detail the exact output structure or any data source nuances beyond naming the MapServer.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary purpose in the first sentence. It's a few short sentences with no filler, effectively conveying the tool's function and connection to a sibling in minimal space.

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 a single parameter, readOnly/openWorld annotations, and an output schema present, the description covers the essential need. It explains the return (fields and legend), connects to geo_find usage, and names the data source. The output schema handles return-value details, so the description doesn't need to.

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?

There is a single parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the burden. It does explain that 'layer' is a layer id (with example in the schema 'ch.are.bauzonen'), and the description clarifies the fields come from geo.admin.ch MapServer. The description adds context that the layer's fields are queryable for geo_find, but doesn't elaborate on the legend format.

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 states a clear verb+resource ('Queryable fields and legend (plain text) for a layer') and ties it to the geo.admin.ch MapServer source. It distinguishes itself by mentioning the fields can be used with geo_find, but doesn't explicitly contrast against siblings like geo_search_layers.

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 explains the tool reveals fields that can be passed to geo_find as search_field, which gives clear usage context and connects it to a sibling tool. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or list alternative scenarios.

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