geo_search_layers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety and scope profile. The description adds the ~700-layer catalogue scope and the data source (geo.admin.ch SearchServer), which is useful context. However, it doesn't describe pagination, ordering, or whether results are sorted by relevance. With solid annotations in place, a 3 is appropriate.

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 short paragraphs, well front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The second paragraph adds one valuable line about its pipeline role and one about the data source. Zero waste, 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?

For a simple discovery/search tool with one required param and a default limit, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, pipeline role, and data source. It could slightly improve by noting result format details or relevance sorting, but the presence of an output schema relieves the description of explaining return value structure. Minor gap in usage nuance keeps it from a 5.

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%, so the description must compensate, but the two parameters (query, limit) are already well-described in the schema itself (query: 'Keyword(s) to search the layer catalogue'; limit: 'Maximum layers to return', with min/max bounds). The description adds the catalogue scale context but no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema carries the load.

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?

Description clearly states the verb+resource: 'Keyword-search the ~700-layer federal geodata catalogue'. It explicitly frames itself as 'the discovery entry point' returning layer ids for downstream tools, distinguishing it from geo_identify, geo_find, and geo_layer_info by naming them as consumers of its output. This is specific and actionable.

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 explicitly positions this as the discovery entry point and names the exact downstream tools (geo_identify, geo_find, geo_layer_info) that accept its returned ids, giving clear when-to-use guidance. It explains its role in the pipeline relative to the sibling tools, which all appear to operate on already-identified layers.

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