gugik_nmpt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that the tool queries the tile-index service and returns download links. It also explains the organizational structure (per-sheet tiles by acquisition year). This adds context beyond a simple query. However, it does not mention any potential side effects or limits (e.g., rate limits, required permissions).

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 paragraphs. The first sentence immediately states the purpose. The second paragraph provides context and usage guidance. While informative, the second paragraph could be slightly more concise without losing value. Overall, it is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 has only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It explains why the tool exists (no WMS for NMPT), what it does (queries tile-index service), what it returns (download links), and how to use it in conjunction with a sibling tool for broader tasks. No important gaps.

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 has two required parameters (lat, lon) with type number but no descriptions (schema description coverage 0%). The description mentions lat/lon in WGS84 but does not provide additional semantics such as valid ranges, precision, or coordinate order. It partially compensates but could be more helpful.

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 the tool looks up NMPT tile coverage at a point using lat/lon. It distinguishes itself from sibling `gugik_download_nmt_tiles` which is used for fetching tiles across an extent. The verb 'look up' and resource 'Numeryczny Model Pokrycia Terenu (digital surface model) tile coverage' are specific and descriptive.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool (for a single point query) and when to use an alternative (`gugik_download_nmt_tiles` with `variant="nmpt"` for fetching across an extent). It also explains the context of NMPT not being available as a WMS, which clarifies the need for this tool.

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