list_ogd_stations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety and repeatability are covered structurally. The description adds the default collection value and the fact that a full STAC id is accepted, but says nothing about result ordering, whether results are truncated by the default limit, or error behaviour for unknown aliases.

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?

It is front-loaded with the resource and source, and each sentence carries a distinct fact (what it lists, the default, alternatives, filters). The enumerated alias list duplicates the schema's collection description verbatim, which is the only wasted content.

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?

For a four-parameter, entirely optional read tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers source, scope, defaults and filtering adequately. The remaining gap is differentiating the collection semantics from the other station-list tools in the server.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented with defaults, ranges and examples. The description largely restates the collection alias list already present in the schema and adds no new syntax or edge-case semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('List MeteoSwiss Open Government Data stations from a STAC collection') plus the source host, so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from near-neighbours such as list_weather_stations or list_snow_stations, which is what keeps it from a 5.

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?

It states the default collection (smn) and that you can filter by canton or a name/code search, which implies when the tool is useful. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to pick this over the sibling station-listing tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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