swisstopo_geocode

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds the conversion behavior but no additional constraints, errors, or side effects. It does not contradict annotations.

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 sentences, front-loading the core purpose and adding a brief use case. No fluff or repetition.

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 description mentions the output type (coordinates) and suggests follow-up tools. An output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed. Minor gap: no mention of coordinate format or error handling, but sufficient for common use.

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 reported as 0%, so the description must compensate. It only explains the main parameter (search_text) by mentioning address/place/ZIP. The other three parameters (origins, sr, limit) are not described in the tool description, even though the schema has their definitions. The description adds little value beyond the schema for these parameters.

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 the tool converts addresses, place names, and ZIP codes into coordinates (geocoding). It distinguishes from siblings like swisstopo_reverse_geocode, and explicitly uses the term 'Geocoding' and a use case showing it as a starting point for other 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 explicitly recommends this tool as the starting point for location queries and suggests subsequent tools (get_height, identify_features, get_egrid). It implies when NOT to use (if coordinates are already available, use reverse geocode), providing clear guidance.

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