swisstopo_reverse_geocode

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds only the use case context, no additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.

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 a single sentence plus a use_case tag, front-loaded and without extraneous information. Every part serves a purpose.

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 omits important contextual details such as the geographic constraint (coordinates must be within Switzerland, as per schema min/max) and the result limit parameter (default 5, max 10). While an output schema exists, these missing details affect completeness.

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?

Context signals indicate schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate. However, the description does not explain any parameters (lat, lon, limit, sr) beyond the schema itself. The schema does have descriptions, but the tool description adds no parameter value.

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 'Findet die nächstgelegene Adresse zu gegebenen WGS84-Koordinaten (Reverse Geocoding)', which is a specific verb+resource. The sibling list includes 'swisstopo_geocode' for forward geocoding, so the tool is distinct.

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 includes a <use_case> tag suggesting when to use (resolving coordinates from map/GPS to address), but it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or mention alternatives like 'swisstopo_identify_features'. Usage is implied but not exclusive.

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