wsl_get_naturgefahren_data

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds no behavioral context beyond stating it returns data, which is already obvious from the purpose. No contradiction, but no additional value.

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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence, bullet lists for content, and separate usage notes. It is not overly long and each section adds value. However, the usage guidelines could be integrated more concisely.

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 (so return values need not be detailed), the description adequately covers purpose, parameter semantics, and application context. It does not mention pagination or data limits, but for a single-parameter query tool, it is sufficiently 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 description explains that the 'params' parameter controls 'Anzahl Ergebnisse und Format' (number of results and format), which adds meaning beyond the schema (which only has a generic description for SimpleQueryInput). However, it does not detail constraints like the maximum limit of 20, so compensation is partial.

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 that the tool returns datasets on natural hazards in Switzerland, listing specific types (avalanches, landslides, etc.). It distinguishes from more specific siblings like wsl_get_avalanche_data by covering multiple hazard types. However, it could be more precise about the exact nature of the returned data (e.g., events with date/location).

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 provides usage context by listing relevant applications (Raumplanung, Katastrophenschutz, etc.), which helps the agent decide when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with specific sibling tools for disambiguation.

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