swisstopo_geocode

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds the workflow context but does not disclose additional behavioral details like pagination or handling of multiple results. With annotations, 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?

The description is concise: one main sentence plus a structured use_case block. Every sentence serves a purpose, with no redundant information.

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 rich schema and annotations, the description is complete enough for an agent to understand when and how to use the tool. The use_case ties it into a larger workflow, and return values are covered by the output schema. Minor gap: it doesn't explicitly explain the optional filters, but these are well-documented in the schema.

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 description does not mention any parameters, but the input schema provides detailed descriptions for each property (search_text, sr, limit, origins). Since the schema covers parameter semantics, the description adds little beyond it, and the baseline is 3.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Wandelt eine Adresse, einen Ortsnamen oder eine PLZ in Koordinaten um (Geocoding).' It distinguishes this from reverse geocoding and other sibling tools by naming the conversion direction and the downstream tool usage.

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 use_case explicitly describes when to use this tool ('Startpunkt für ortsbezogene Abfragen') and which downstream tools it feeds into, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or directly compare with reverse_geocode, so it's not a full 5.

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