swisstopo_find_features

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds that this is a non-geographic attribute search, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination or limits. Given the rich annotations, this is adequate.

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 concise (two sentences plus use_case and important_notes), front-loads the main purpose, and uses structured tags efficiently. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers the essential purpose, usage context, and differentiation. Annotations and schema fill in the rest, making it complete.

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?

The input schema itself describes parameters (e.g., 'Layer-ID', 'Suchwert', 'Attributfeld', 'Teilstring-Suche'). The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, but since schema descriptions are present, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states 'Sucht Features anhand eines Attributwerts in einem Layer' (search features by attribute value), includes an example (buildings by EGID), and contrasts with swisstopo_identify_features in important_notes, clearly differentiating from sibling tools.

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 includes a use_case tag ('Finde den Datensatz mit Attribut X – nicht-geografische Suche nach einem bekannten Wert') and important_notes that explicitly contrasts with swisstopo_identify_features (point query), providing when-to-use guidance. However, it does not mention other alternatives explicitly.

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