search_map_layers

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: an absent query yields the first page alphabetically, and the tool returns layer ids rather than full records.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource and catalogue, then the return contract, then the no-argument fallback. No 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?

For a three-optional-parameter search with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return shape, and the important empty-query case. Only minor gaps remain (how to reach further pages beyond the first, whether results include names/owners alongside ids).

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 100% and the schema already documents limit defaults/max, owner examples, and which fields the query matches. The description adds almost nothing parameter-specific beyond the implicit 'no query = browse' behavior, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb-and-resource pair ('Search or list layers') scoped to a named catalogue (geo.admin.ch MapServer, all federal geospatial layers), which immediately separates it from identify_map_layer and find_map_features.

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?

Explains the output's downstream use ('Returns layer ids that identify_map_layer and find_map_features accept'), effectively routing the agent to the correct follow-up tools, and clarifies the no-query case. It stops short of saying when NOT to search, but the context is clear.

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