swisstopo_search_geodata

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

Annotations already declare the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context by specifying that the result is collections/metadata, not direct data, and that download links require a complementary tool. This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies the tool's role in a workflow.

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 extremely compact, with a one-sentence main purpose and two clearly labeled sections (use_case and important_notes). Every sentence contributes meaningful guidance without unnecessary detail. The structure front-loads the core function and separates practical usage notes.

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?

For a read-only search tool, the description is largely complete: it states the resource, the output type, and directs to the sibling tool for downloads. It does not explain the full return structure or edge cases, but an output schema exists and the annotations cover safety, so the missing details are not critical.

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 indicates 0% schema description coverage, meaning the description does not explain any parameter semantics. Although the schema itself contains descriptions for query and limit, the description offers no added guidance; it merely repeats query examples from the schema. The limit parameter is entirely unmentioned in the description, failing to compensate for the low coverage.

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 uses the specific verb 'Durchsucht' (searches) with a clear resource 'STAC-Katalog' and object 'herunterladbaren Geodaten'. It also lists concrete data types (Orthophotos, Höhenmodelle, 3D-Gebäude, historische Karten), distinguishing it from sibling tools like swisstopo_get_collection.

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 important_notes explicitly state that the tool returns collections/metadata and that download links are obtained via swisstopo_get_collection, providing a clear alternative. The use_case gives concrete examples of when to use the tool, making the selection rationale explicit.

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