swisstopo_get_egrid

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds usage context (precursor step and canton requirement) but does not contradict annotations. No hidden behaviors are missing.

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 plus structured XML tags. It front-loads the purpose and uses <use_case> and <important_notes> to organize additional context without unnecessary elaboration.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown but noted in context), the description adequately covers the tool's role, prerequisites, and constraints. It could mention error handling for unsupported cantons or coordinates, but for a simple lookup, it is nearly 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 provides detailed descriptions for each parameter (lat, lon, canton) including ranges and format. The tool description does not add extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already offers, so a baseline score of 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 clearly states it determines the EGRID (parcel ID) from coordinates for a specific canton. It also explicitly positions itself as a prerequisite for swisstopo_get_oereb_extract, distinguishing it 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 provides clear context on when to use (as a precursor step) and mentions supported cantons as a requirement. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternative tools for other cases.

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