swisstopo_query_geodata

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds behavioral context about the façade nature, the requirement to pass exactly one location, and layer-specific parameter requirements (geodienste require bbox/point). No contradictions.

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 concise, with a clear primary sentence followed by structured use_case and important_notes tags. Every sentence adds value, and the format is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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's complexity (7 parameters, multiple layer types) and the presence of a detailed input schema and output schema, the description covers the core usage rules (exactly one location, layer-source mapping, geodienste requirements). It does not explicitly state which location types apply to each layer, but the schema covers parameter constraints, making this acceptable.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does mention point, bbox, commune, and radius_m, and explains that geodienste layers require bbox or point, adding meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not systematically describe the parameters or their mutual exclusivity; the schema itself handles most detail.

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 identifies the tool as a unified facade over multiple geodata sources based on a layer identifier, and enumerates the specific source types ('strassenverzeichnis', 'oereb-verfuegbarkeit', 'geodienste'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle narrower queries.

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 gives explicit constraints: exactly one location parameter (point, bbox, or commune), and notes that geodienste layers require bbox or point with radius_m. It also directs users to swisstopo_list_available_layers for valid layer IDs. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' alternatives, but provides clear context.

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