swisstopo_search_address

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds behavioral details: results are paginated, max 50 per request, total hit count is shown, and data source is OpenPLZ (BFS/swisstopo OGD). It also mentions it returns Gemeinde and BFS number if available, which is useful context beyond 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 compact and well-structured, using clear tags for use_case and important_notes. Each sentence delivers distinct value: purpose, output, pagination, data source, and alternative tool. No redundant or filler content.

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 presence of an output schema and strong annotations, the description covers all necessary selection and invocation context: clear use case, pagination behavior, data source, and when to prefer a sibling tool. It fully equips an agent to decide and call the tool correctly.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for both 'query' and 'limit', including patterns and constraints. The description adds only minor extra context (e.g., 'freien Suchbegriff', pagination limit) that largely mirrors the schema. With schema coverage at 100% for parameter meaning, baseline 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 it is a full-text search over Swiss streets and localities ('Volltextsuche über Schweizer Strassen und Ortschaften') and specifies the output includes municipality and BFS number. It also distinguishes itself from sibling swisstopo_lookup_postal_code by noting that tool is more precise for exact PLZ-to-municipality resolution.

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 explicitly provides an alternative: 'Für die exakte PLZ→Gemeinde-Auflösung ist swisstopo_lookup_postal_code präziser.' It also states pagination behavior (max 50 per query) and that total hits are returned, giving concrete usage context.

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