geo_municipality_at

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 value by noting the data source (swissBOUNDARIES3D) and the BFS-number bridging usage. It does not describe edge cases like points outside Switzerland or at boundaries, which would be useful, but annotations carry the main burden here.

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 three sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core action and output, the second provides integration/bridging context, and the third cites the data source. 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?

The tool is simple (one point input, well-documented nested schema, read-only), and the description covers the core purpose plus integration value. An output schema exists, so return-format explanation is unnecessary. Could note boundary/outside-Switzerland behavior for completeness, but for a straightforward geospatial lookup with annotations and schema coverage, this is adequate.

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% for the top-level params field, but the nested PointInput schema itself has descriptions for easting and northing with example values (2683531, 1247914). The description clarifies the coordinate system (LV95) and confirms both parameters are used for the point lookup. Since the nested schema already documents the parameters well, the description adds marginal value beyond reinforcing the LV95 context.

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 exactly what the tool does: returns 'Municipality, BFS number and canton' for a given LV95 point, sourced from swissBOUNDARIES3D. It uses a specific verb+resource structure and clearly distinguishes this from siblings like geo_height (elevation) and geo_zoning_at (zoning) by specifying the geographic lookup behavior.

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 clearly specifies this is a point-based lookup (LV95/CH1903+ coordinates), and the mention of the BFS number bridging to register/statistics servers gives useful cross-tool context. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the LV95 coordinate requirement implicitly distinguishes it from coordinate-conversion siblings. No explicit 'when-not-to-use' is given, but the geographic lookup purpose is unambiguous.

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