swisstopo_get_collection

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds workflow context but no additional behavioral details such as authentication, rate limits, or output quirks. 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 extremely concise, with two sentences: the first states the core function, and the second gives the workflow context. Information is front-loaded and every sentence 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 tool is simple (one parameter), has an output schema, and annotations cover safety. The description provides workflow context via the use_case, but could be more explicit about how to derive collection_id from search results. Overall, it is sufficient for selection and 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?

The description does not mention the collection_id parameter at all. Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description fails to compensate. The schema provides an example but lacks detailed semantics on how to obtain a valid collection ID.

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's function: retrieving detailed information and download links for a STAC collection. The use_case further specifies that it is the second step after swisstopo_search_geodata, which distinguishes it from sibling search 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 use_case explicitly tells when to use this tool: after swisstopo_search_geodata, to obtain assets/download URLs. It does not list when-not-to-use or explicit alternatives, but the sequential workflow provides clear guidance.

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