Produktinfo: Energieausweis für Wohngebäude bestellen (Preise, benötigte Unterlagen, gesetzliche Voraussetzungen).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint true and destructiveHint false, which aligns with the description stating it provides product information. The description adds specifics about what information is provided (prices, documents, legal prerequisites), going beyond annotations.
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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with key information. Every word earns its place without redundancy.
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 simple read-only informational tool with zero parameters and an output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose. It could mention the output format, but the output schema handles that.
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 has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. No parameter details are needed in the description, and the baseline score of 4 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 clearly states the tool provides product information about ordering an energy certificate for residential buildings, including prices, required documents, and legal requirements. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that handle order management.
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 implies usage for informational queries about the energy certificate product, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like bestellung_aufgeben or bestell_status. Usage context is somewhat implied by the sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct stage of the ordering process: product info, pre-check, placing an order, and checking order status. There is no overlap between their responsibilities, and the descriptions clearly separate them.
All tool names are in German snake_case, but the pattern is not fully uniform: two are noun-based (bestell_status, energieausweis_info) and two are verb-phrase-based (bestellung_aufgeben, bestellung_pruefen). The root word also varies slightly (bestell vs. bestellung), though the overall style is predictable and readable.
Four tools is well-scoped for the server's purpose of handling an energy certificate order. Each tool covers a necessary step without redundancy or unnecessary additions.
The tool set covers the complete customer journey: information, pre-check, order placement, and status inquiry. There are no obvious gaps for the stated domain of ordering a Verbrauchsausweis.