swisstopo_municipality_at

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description adds key behavioral details: it returns the current state from a layer with per-historical-year features, and that results are empty on boundaries or outside Switzerland. This is meaningful context that the annotations do not convey.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence summary, a use_case block, and important_notes. Every sentence provides distinct value—function, context, and edge-case behavior—with no redundancy or filler.

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 output schema exists and the schema documents parameters, the description is nearly complete. It covers the primary use case (BFS join key), the current-state behavior, and empty-result conditions. It does not explicitly state that lat/lon and easting/northing are mutually exclusive coordinate systems, but the schema hints at this, so a small gap remains.

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 discuss parameters, and schema_description_coverage is 0%. However, the input schema itself provides thorough descriptions for lat/lon/easting/northing, including coordinate system hints and examples, so the schema carries the semantic burden. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, 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 the tool returns 'Gemeinde, BFS-Nummer und Kanton an einer Koordinate' (municipality, BFS number, and canton at a coordinate), specifying the resource and output. This distinguishes it from siblings like reverse_geocode or geocode, which focus on addresses or broader 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 describes when to use: to obtain the official BFS municipality number as a join key for other MCPs. It also warns in important_notes that results are empty on borders or outside Switzerland, giving practical guidance. It does not name alternative tools, but the context is clear enough for selection.

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