gugik_bdot10k

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses all key behaviors: download vs. extract, loading specifics per format (e.g., GML packaging into GPKG), and that without output_dir only URL is returned. No contradictions.

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 slightly verbose but every sentence adds value. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and structured logically. Could be slightly shorter but overall 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 complexity with 4 parameters and varying behaviors, the description covers all necessary aspects: parameter details, format-specific notes, and output schema existence. No gaps for an agent to misuse.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter: teryt (4-digit TERYT code), format (enumerated values like GPKG, SHP, GML, GeoParquet), output_dir (null returns URL), and add_to_project (behavior per format).

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 explicitly states 'Download BDOT10k (topographic database) for one powiat (county), by its 4-digit TERYT code.' This clearly specifies the verb (download) and resource (BDOT10k), and distinguishes from other gugik_ tools.

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 explains when to use each format, what happens with/without output_dir, and the loading behavior for add_to_project for GPKG, GML, SHP, and GeoParquet. It explicitly states GeoParquet isn't supported for add_to_project, providing clear when-not guidance.

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