swisstopo_zoning_at

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context by explaining the ARE layer is a non-binding synthesis and that the legal disclaimers appear in every result, which is beyond the annotation set. No contradictions found.

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 efficiently structured with a leading one-sentence summary followed by tagged use_case and important_notes sections. It avoids redundancies and front-loads the core purpose, though the XML-like tags add some bulk.

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 simple point-lookup tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential context: purpose, coordinate formats, the legal caveat, and the relationship to sibling tools. It does not address edge cases like out-of-bounds coordinates or service limitations, but these are secondary given the schema's bounds and annotations.

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 description mentions 'lat/lon (WGS84) oder easting/northing (LV95)', which adds coordinate-system semantics beyond the schema's terse per-property descriptions. However, it does not clarify that the two coordinate pairs are mutually exclusive alternatives, nor does it explain the required 'params' object wrapper. The schema's own descriptions provide some context, so the description partially compensates 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 begins with a clear verb+resource statement: 'Gibt die harmonisierte Bauzone an einer Koordinate zurück' (returns the harmonized building zone at a coordinate). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tool swisstopo_map_query by explicitly noting it avoids a prior layer-ID lookup, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 section provides a direct query example ('Welche Bauzone gilt hier?') and explains when to use this tool instead of swisstopo_map_query. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it beyond the legal caveat, nor compare to other 'at coordinate' siblings like swisstopo_municipality_at.

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