swisstopo_get_feature

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, destructive, idempotent, and openWorld hints. The description adds that it retrieves complete attributes and geometry, which is beyond what annotations provide and clarifies the return content.

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 plus a use_case tag, front-loaded with the core action. Every part adds value, no wasted words.

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 has an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the purpose, usage context, and key inputs. It is complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 already provides descriptions for layer, feature_id, and sr. The tool description repeats the key parameters ('per Layer- und Feature-ID') but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. The schema coverage is effectively good, so 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 clearly states it fetches full attributes and geometry by layer and feature ID. The use_case tag further specifies it is for detail retrieval after identification tools, distinguishing it from sibling tools like swisstopo_identify_features.

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 indicates when to use (after identify/find features provide an ID), but does not list explicit exclusions or alternatives beyond that. The context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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