zurich_geo_features

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds that it returns a GeoJSON FeatureCollection and supports markdown or JSON output, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits or authentication needs.

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 short paragraphs, front-loading the purpose and listing examples. It is concise without redundant information, though the 'Returns' line could be more integrated.

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 simple read-only nature, annotations, and output description (GeoJSON FeatureCollection), the description covers the essential context. It does not explain pagination or edge cases, but the tool's scope is narrow and well-covered.

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?

Schema descriptions for parameters (layer_id, format, max_features, property_filter) are detailed, so schema_description_coverage is high. The description adds minimal extra beyond mentioning feature types and properties (points, polygons, names, addresses).

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 fetches geo data from the Zurich WFS Geoportal as GeoJSON. It lists example features (schools, districts, playgrounds) and differentiates from sibling tools which focus on other city data like parliamentary records or weather.

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 gives examples of use cases (schools, playgrounds, etc.) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like zurich_geo_layers or other data tools. The usage context is implied but not clearly scoped.

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