Germandex Student Guides

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: content is returned as Markdown, unknown routes are rejected, and legal pages ignore the language parameter.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the routing rules. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does state the return format (Markdown), so the main gap is closed. It does not describe failure behavior for unknown routes beyond the prohibition, nor any size/pagination characteristics, but nothing essential for a correct call is missing.

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 carries the burden, and it does: 'route' is sourced from list_sections with '/' as the homepage special case, and 'language' is optional with an English-only restriction for legal pages. The 80-character route cap is left undocumented, which is minor.

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 (fetch) and resource (a single published guide) plus the return format (Markdown). It is clearly distinguishable from the list_* siblings, which enumerate collections rather than retrieving one item.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent where the 'route' value comes from (list_sections) and that '/' fetches the homepage, which is real routing guidance. It stops short of stating when not to use this tool, but the constraint 'Only known public guide routes are allowed' bounds usage well.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral fact beyond the annotations: the result set is fixed at ten supported cities. It says nothing further about ordering or response shape, but for a small static list that is a minor 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the count and the return content both earn their place.

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?

With no output schema, no parameters and a fixed ten-item result, the description conveys enough for correct invocation. It does not explicitly connect the listed 'guide entry points' to the get_guide sibling, which would have closed the last gap for an agent planning a multi-step call.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document and the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description conflicts with the empty schema.

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 ('List') and resource ('ten supported German student cities and their guide entry points'), so an agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from the sibling get_guide, which keeps it short of 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?

The phrase 'their guide entry points' implies this is the discovery step that feeds get_guide, giving implied usage context. However, there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus list_sections or get_guide, and no exclusions are offered.

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?

The annotations already declare the operation as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and not open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by listing the kinds of data returned, but it does not explain default behavior when city is omitted or how the results are structured.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the main purpose and follows with the optional parameter. It contains no redundant or filler text.

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 list tool with one optional enum and no output schema, the description covers the broad return categories and optional city. It still leaves gaps around default behavior, result structure, and sibling differentiation.

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 single city parameter has an enum but 0% schema description coverage. The description says it is optional and must be a supported city, but it does not explain whether choosing a city filters sections, changes the returned guides, or what happens when it is omitted.

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 uses a specific verb, 'List', and names the resources returned: city sections, Germany-wide guides, and supported language codes. It is clear enough to distinguish this from get_guide, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from list_cities.

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 optional city parameter implies that the tool can be used either for all sections or for a specific city. However, the description does not state when to use this tool instead of list_cities or get_guide, leaving the choice implicit.

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