search_location_swiss

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose defaults for include_features, language, and count, plus return fields, but it never reconciles the default false of include_features with examples like 'Search for Matherhorn → Mountain peak', leaving the required configuration ambiguous.

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?

Markdown sections — Feature Types, Examples, Use this tool when, Args, Returns — make the description scannable, and the purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence. A few sentences repeat the same idea, but no major section is wasteful.

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?

The description covers inputs, defaults, examples, and returns well for a tool with one required parameter. It is incomplete because it never tells the agent when to prefer this tool over the sibling search_location, and it does not clarify how include_features must be set for the feature-type examples to work.

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 0% description coverage, but the Args section fully compensates: all four parameters are explained, language values are enumerated (de, fr, it, en), count is bounded (1-50), and default behavior is stated. This adds substantial meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 opens with 'Search for locations in Switzerland...' and reinforces 'Specialized search for Swiss locations', naming populated places, mountains, lakes, and passes. This clearly distinguishes it from the generic sibling search_location by geographic scope and feature focus.

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 'Use this tool when' section provides concrete selection criteria: searching in Switzerland, seeking geographic features, needing coordinates, and filtering by location type. However, it does not explicitly exclude non-Swiss searches or point to search_location as the alternative, and the 'filter by location type' bullet implies a type parameter not present in the schema.

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