swisstopo_map_url

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds that it produces a shareable link and does not perform data retrieval, but it doesn't disclose details about URL format, coordinate limitations, or error behavior. The added context is helpful but minimal beyond the safety profile.

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 short sentences. The first sentence states the core action, and the second clarifies the use case. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 clearly explains the tool's purpose and use case. While it doesn't detail URL construction or parameter constraints, the schema and output schema fill in those details. For a simple URL-generation tool, the context is sufficiently 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the top-level parameter, and the tool description does not compensate by explaining the required 'params' object or its fields. The nested schema has descriptions, but the description text provides no guidance on parameters, leaving a gap for the agent.

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: 'Generiert eine teilbare map.geo.admin.ch-URL zum Öffnen im Browser.' This is a specific verb (generates) with a specific resource (map.geo.admin.ch URL), and it distinctly contrasts with sibling tools that perform data retrieval or geocoding.

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 block clarifies when to use the tool: 'Einen Kartenausschnitt mit optionalen Layern als Link bereitstellen (kein Datenabruf).' This gives clear context and explicitly states the tool does NOT retrieve data, helping distinguish it from siblings.

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