zurich_geo_features

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, making the tool's safety profile clear. The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying the return format (GeoJSON FeatureCollection) and the types of geographic features (points, polygons), which is not present in annotations alone.

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 concise, with three sentences in German and two in English, plus a 'Returns' line. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and quickly covers output format and examples. However, slight redundancy between the two languages could be streamlined, but overall it is well-structured and efficient.

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 tool's moderate complexity (parameterized layer selection, optional filters, output format), the description covers the core functionality, use cases, and return type. It does not explain coordinate systems, pagination, or the structure of the property_filter in depth, but the presence of an output schema mitigates the need for full return value documentation.

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 provides detailed descriptions for all three parameters, including enum values for layer_id, default and limits for max_features, and an example CQL filter for property_filter. The tool description does not add additional meaning or context beyond what the schema already offers; thus it meets the baseline expectation.

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 retrieves geodata from the WFS Geoportal of Zurich as GeoJSON, specifying it returns geographic features (points, polygons) with properties like name, address, and category. It also lists example layers (Schulanlagen, Stadtkreise, Spielplätze) which distinguishes it from siblings like zurich_geo_layers that list available layers.

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 clear usage context by stating it is useful for specific data types (e.g., school facilities, districts, playgrounds). While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, the context signals and sibling names (e.g., zurich_geo_layers, zurich_datastore_query) allow an AI agent to infer appropriate scenarios, though exclusions would improve clarity.

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