mop_get_residential_topography

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses the return structure (year, total_features, features_with_coordinates, categories, cities, sample_features, query_methods), error behavior (Raises ToolError for invalid year or API failure), and accepted year values. This is rich behavioral context beyond minimal safety declarations.

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 well-structured with clear sections (PURPOSE, WHEN TO USE, WHEN NOT TO USE, Args, Returns, Raises) that front-load the core purpose. Each section earns its place by providing necessary operational or decision-making information, with no redundant filler.

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 simple interface (1 parameter) and lack of annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, usage scenarios, parameter constraints, return structure, and error conditions. It is fully self-sufficient for correct selection and invocation, making it contextually complete.

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 only a bare integer 'year' with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates fully by specifying the valid years (1800, 1845, 1872, 1891, 1914) and explaining the context parameter (ctx) for progress reporting. It adds crucial meaning that the schema lacks.

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 a specific verb-resource statement ('Fetch complete residential topography dataset for a specific year') and elaborates in PURPOSE that it retrieves GeoJSON data about residences in Berlin and Prussia. This clearly distinguishes the tool's focused scope from siblings like mop_search_residential_topography.

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 contains explicit WHEN TO USE and WHEN NOT TO USE sections, listing concrete scenarios (e.g., 'User asks about where people lived in a specific year') and providing named alternatives for exclusions ('use search_register() for biographical register data', 'use browse_documents() or search_documents() for document texts'). This meets the highest standard for usage guidance.

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