Anbieter für Kündigungen (Kündigungsadresse/Fax/Frist). Länder: de, at, ch. Optional Freitextsuche.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max. Treffer (Default 25). | |
| query | No | Freitext über Name/Aliase (min. 2 Zeichen). | |
| country | No | Land: "de" | "at" | "ch" (Default de). | |
| category | No | Anbieter-Kategorie (optional). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It states what the tool lists, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, default limits, or response structure. For a simple list operation this is minimally adequate but not rich; it earns a 3.
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 one efficient sentence plus a short list of countries and an option. Every word adds value, and it is appropriately sized for a simple list tool.
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, a full output schema is absent but the description is largely complete: it clarifies the domain (cancellations), countries, and optional search. It does omit mention of the 'category' parameter, but that is detailed in the schema, so the threshold for completeness is met.
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 schema covers 100% of the parameters with descriptions, including limit, query, country, and category. The description only reiterates countries and free-text search, adding little beyond the schema. Baseline is 3, and no extra semantics are provided.
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 it lists providers for cancellations, including the specific attributes (address/fax/deadline) and countries (de, at, ch). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_provider (singular fetch) and search_templates (templates), and the German term 'Anbieter' is specific enough.
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 clear context: when you need cancellation-related provider details and the supported countries, this is the tool. It also mentions optional free-text search, implying usage for filtering. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, so it stops 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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Every tool targets a distinct action and resource: fax, brief, envelope, template, account, etc. There is no noticeable overlap; even fill_pdf and fill_template are clearly differentiated by type of PDF.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores (e.g., account_balance, fax_confirm, search_templates). No mixing of conventions or irregular styles.
With 33 tools, the server covers multiple subdomains (PDF, fax, postal, signatures, templates). This is on the higher side but still reasonable for a comprehensive document processing server. However, it could benefit from consolidation.
The tool surface covers core document workflows: fill, sign, scan, fax, mail, template exploration, and account management. Minor gaps exist (e.g., PDF merging or splitting), but most user journeys are supported.
