geo_zoning_at

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, which the description does not contradict. The description adds the data source note (ch.are.bauzonen) and clarifies it returns the 'main-use' zone type. However, it doesn't explain behavior for points outside zoning-covered areas given openWorldHint=true, or detail what happens when no zone exists at the point. With readOnlyHint already declared, some credit for adding data-source context; score 3 is fair.

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, one introductory sentence and one return-value sentence. Zero filler or repetition. Could possibly add usage guidance without becoming verbose, but current size is appropriately economical.

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 an output schema present and readOnly annotations set, the tool is reasonably complete for a point-query tool, but openWorldHint=true signals incomplete data that the description could address. It doesn't state what happens at points with no zoning, which is a meaningful gap for a location-based query where unsupported areas likely exist.

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 nested params, so the description carries the burden. The description mentions LV95 coordinates in its opening phrase, but the schema already documents easting/northing fields with examples. The description does not explain coordinate formats or conventions beyond what the schema states, and does not clarify units or precision expectations for LV95 points.

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 it returns 'the harmonised main-use zone type' at an LV95 point, with a specific verb+resource ('building zone(s) at a point'). It names the data source (ch.are.bauzonen, ARE) which adds specificity. It could better distinguish from siblings like geo_municipality_at, but the phrase 'harmonised building zone type' is reasonably clear.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like geo_identify or geo_municipality_at. It doesn't mention what the openWorldHint implies (data may be incomplete outside certain areas), nor does it state that it requires LV95 coordinates as a prerequisite (which is instead learned from the schema). No exclusions or conditions are given.

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