get_collection_queryables

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds the context of 'modern OGC collection' but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as performance, rate limits, or error scenarios. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description provides marginal extra value.

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 a single sentence of 12 words, concise and front-loaded with the verb 'List'. Every word is purposeful with no waste.

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 an output schema and annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It explains the tool's primary purpose but does not cover when to choose it over siblings or provide parameter details. For a simple fetch tool with one parameter, it meets baseline expectations.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'for a modern OGC collection' implying the 'collection' parameter identifies the collection, but it does not specify valid values, format, or examples. The single required parameter lacks sufficient semantic clarity.

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?

Description clearly states the tool lists filterable fields and schemas for an OGC collection. The verb 'list' and resource 'filterable fields and schemas' are specific. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools, though most siblings are about water flow data, making this tool unique.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, expected use cases, or exclusions. The agent must infer from the tool name and siblings.

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