swisstopo_list_available_layers

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 beyond these by framing the tool as a 'Discovery-Tool' and explaining that it outputs layer IDs accepted by query_geodata, with emphasis on free availability without contract. This provides useful behavioral context without contradicting the 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: two sentences and a use_case tag. The first line immediately states the core purpose, and the use_case adds practical context without any fluff. 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 description covers the tool's purpose, usage timing, and a practical example. Since an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. It also mentions the free-availability constraint. Some details like response format or filtering semantics are not described, but they are either in the schema or not essential for a simple discovery tool.

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 0% (the top-level 'params' property has no description), and the description does not explain the parameters object. It only gives a single example (canton='ZH'). The inner schema does describe each field, but the description fails to compensate for the lack of top-level param documentation, so the agent gets minimal guidance on how to construct the input.

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: 'listet die Layer-Kennungen, die swisstopo_query_geodata akzeptiert' (lists layer identifiers accepted by swisstopo_query_geodata). It uses a specific verb (listet) and resource (Layer-Kennungen), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling query tool by being a discovery step.

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 says 'Erster Schritt vor swisstopo_query_geodata' (first step before query_geodata), giving clear when-to-use context. It also provides a concrete use case and an example of specifying a canton. However, it does not mention when not to use or name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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