knowledge

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description mentions it returns a 'structured overview' but doesn't specify format, size limitations, or potential errors. It doesn't address whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), authentication requirements, rate limits, or other behavioral traits. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic purpose.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides usage guidelines with specific examples. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. While efficient, the German language phrasing is slightly verbose compared to optimal English equivalents, but still earns a high score for zero 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete for its purpose. It explains what the tool does and when to use it. However, without annotations or output schema, it lacks details about the return format, potential limitations, or error conditions. For a tool that presumably returns structured data about services, more information about the response structure would be helpful.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description doesn't need to explain parameters since there are none. It appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose and usage without unnecessary parameter discussion. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description meets this expectation.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Gibt eine strukturierte Übersicht aller Dienstleistungen und Kernkompetenzen von Michael Kanda / designare.at zurück' (Returns a structured overview of all services and core competencies). It specifies the verb ('gibt zurück' - returns) and resource ('Dienstleistungen und Kernkompetenzen' - services and core competencies). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'search_knowledge', which might offer overlapping functionality.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Nutze dieses Tool für allgemeine Fragen wie "Was macht designare.at?", "Welche Services bietet Michael Kanda an?" oder wenn du einen Überblick brauchst.' (Use this tool for general questions like 'What does designare.at do?', 'What services does Michael Kanda offer?' or when you need an overview). It gives concrete examples of when to use this tool, though it doesn't mention when NOT to use it or explicitly compare to the sibling tool.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'semantische Suche' which implies intelligent search behavior, but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether results are ranked, paginated, limited in number, require authentication, have rate limits, or what format results return. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 appropriately sized (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence provides useful usage guidance. There's minimal waste, though it could be slightly more structured with bullet points for the topics.

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 1 parameter with 100% schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good purpose and usage context but lacks behavioral transparency about how the search works and what results look like. It's adequate for a simple search tool but could better address the output format and operational constraints.

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 the schema already documents the single 'query' parameter with examples. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting, though the description could have added context about query formulation best practices.

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 clearly states the tool performs semantic search in the designare.at Knowledge Base and specifies what types of information it finds (about Michael Kanda, his services, projects, blog articles, expertise). It distinguishes from the sibling 'get_services' by focusing on search rather than retrieval of services. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling tool, so it's not a perfect 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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Nutze dieses Tool wenn du Fragen über... beantworten willst') with specific topics listed (designare.at, Webdesign in Wien, SEO, GEO, KI-Sichtbarkeit, Michael Kandas Arbeit). It doesn't mention when NOT to use it or explicitly reference the sibling 'get_services' as an alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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