swisstopo_reverse_geocode

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety. The description adds context about WGS84 input and that it finds the nearest address, but does not disclose e.g., return format or geographic bounds. No contradiction with 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 two concise sentences plus a use_case tag, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every word earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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 tool is relatively simple and has an output schema plus safety annotations. However, the description omits important context like Swiss bounds, configurable coordinate systems (sr), and result limit (limit), relying on the schema to convey these. For a tool with nested parameters, this is adequate but not fully 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?

The context signal reports 0% schema description coverage for the top-level params object, meaning the description must compensate for parameter semantics. It only mentions 'WGS84-Koordinaten', which partially explains lat/lon, but does not describe 'sr', 'limit', or the nested structure. The nested schema has descriptions, but the tool description itself adds minimal 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 specifies a clear verb+resource: 'Findet die nächstgelegene Adresse zu gegebenen WGS84-Koordinaten (Reverse Geocoding).' This precisely identifies reverse geocoding and differentiates it from sibling forward geocoding tools like swisstopo_geocode. The use case tag further clarifies the intended scenario.

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 ('Koordinaten aus Karte oder GPS in eine lesbare Adresse auflösen') explicitly states when to use the tool. It implies the distinction from forward geocoding but does not name alternative tools or provide explicit exclusions, so it falls short of a top score.

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