address_to_egid

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the input/output transformation detail but does not disclose behavior for ambiguous addresses, no-match results, or how the limit parameter affects results.

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 two tight sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the core action and outputs, and the second adds useful conceptual framing. Every word 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 core purpose and input/output direction are clear, and the output schema covers return values. However, the description omits behavior around multiple matches and the meaning of 'limit', which an agent would need for fully confident invocation.

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 for parameter documentation. It clarifies the 'address' parameter through 'address in → federal building identifier out', but it says nothing about the 'limit' parameter, leaving a required semantic gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('Geocode') plus a precise resource and output ('Swiss address to EGID/EDID and LV95 coordinates'). It clearly differentiates this tool from siblings like lookup_building or buildings_in_bbox by framing it as the address-to-identifier bridge.

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 clear context: this tool exists to convert addresses into federal building identifiers, making other data sources EGID-capable. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full usage-rule guidance.

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