swisstopo_identify_features

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds no further behavioral details beyond the geographic nature of the query. Given the strong annotation coverage, the description provides adequate but not extensive transparency.

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: one sentence plus two structured tags (use_case, important_notes). It is front-loaded with the core function and uses clear markup for additional context. Every element adds value.

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?

With an output schema available, the description need not explain return values. It provides context for spatial queries, differentiates from a sibling, and leverages annotations. It is complete for its purpose, though it could describe coordinate system assumptions or tolerance units (partially covered in 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; all parameter details are left to the input schema, which has descriptions for each property. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description should have compensated, but it adds no semantic value for 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 finds features at a given coordinate using a spatial point query over layers. It distinguishes itself from swisstopo_find_features (attribute search) in the important_notes, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 tag provides a concrete example of when to use ('Was liegt an diesem Punkt?') and advises to get layer-IDs via swisstopo_search_layers first. The important_notes explicitly contrasts with the sibling tool swisstopo_find_features, guiding the agent on when not to use it.

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