Yoga-Ausbildungen

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds only the multi-item scope; it says nothing about the comparison output, ordering, or how mismatched fields are handled, so it clears the lower annotated bar but adds little.

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 short sentence with the key constraint front-loaded and no filler paragraphs. The phrase 'fact by fact' is stylistic and carries little operational meaning, keeping it just short of maximal.

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 tool whose annotations cover the safety profile, the definition is close to sufficient, but it never hints at what the side-by-side comparison returns or what the agent should expect to do with it (there is no output schema). Adequate, with a clear gap in expected result.

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?

There is one parameter at 0% top-level schema description coverage, so the description should compensate. Instead, 'Two to five listings' merely restates the schema's minItems/maxItems, and the URL-vs-slug format is only documented inside the schema itself. No added semantic meaning beyond structured fields.

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 gives a specific action on a specific resource ('listings side by side') and encodes the cardinality constraint ('Two to five'). It implicitly separates itself from the singular get_listing sibling by requiring multiple listings, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to pick this over get_listing or search_listings, and no prerequisites mentioned. The only inference an agent can draw is the 2-5 count from the phrasing.

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 fully covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior context about returned provenance (source page and check date per fact), but says nothing about lookup failure behavior, freshness windows, or result size.

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 zero filler that packs the resource plus the three most relevant return characteristics. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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, the description must carry the return-value burden, and it only gestures at it ('every fact') without describing structure, field names, or shape. For a one-parameter read tool whose annotations cover safety, this is adequate but leaves the agent guessing about the response payload.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is documented as 'the listing URL or its slug (the last part of the URL).' The description introduces no additional syntax, format, or validation detail, so the schema does all the work — baseline 3.

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 states a specific retrieval verb and resource ('One listing') and goes further to enumerate what comes back: every fact, the source page per fact, and the verification date. This clearly separates it from the multi-item siblings (compare_listings, search_listings), though the description never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'One listing' signals single-item lookup by URL/slug, which contrasts naturally with search_listings and compare_listings. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of when to prefer a sibling, and no prerequisite or error guidance.

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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that each category comes with listing counts and filter values, which is useful return-shape context, though it omits ordering or whether filtering is possible.

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 short clause with no filler or redundancy. It is terse and front-loaded, though the fragmentary grammar makes the structure slightly awkward.

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, the description must carry the burden of explaining return values, and it does so only briefly (categories, listing counts, filters with values). For a simple zero-parameter read tool this is adequate but leaves details like ordering or nesting unspecified.

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 the schema cannot carry parameter meaning and there is nothing for the description to compensate for. Baseline 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 names the resource ('categories') and hints at the returned content (listing counts, filters with values), but is a verbless fragment that never states the action. It adds some information beyond the title but remains only a vague statement of purpose.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like list_places or search_listings, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage can only be weakly inferred from the fact that it returns categories.

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=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results carry listing counts, which is modest output context, but it omits pagination, result limits, and what happens with no parent vs. a parent.

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?

It is a single sentence, so there is no padding, but the colon-based fragment construction and lack of a leading verb make it harder to parse than it needs to be. It is concise without being well-structured.

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, an unexplained enum parameter, and low schema description coverage, the description should carry more weight. It gestures at the return content (places, listings, counts) but leaves the category filter and the no-argument default behavior undocumented.

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 coverage is 50%: the parent parameter has a schema description, but the category enum ('yogalehrer-ausbildung') has no description anywhere. The description hints that 'parent' returns child places, adding minor meaning, but does nothing to explain what the category filter does or how the two parameters interact — insufficient compensation for the coverage gap.

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 identifies the resource (places with listings and their counts) and the two scopes (top level vs. inside a parent place), but it is a noun phrase with no verb and reads ambiguously — 'The places with listings and their numbers' could describe a return value rather than the tool's action. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like list_categories or search_listings.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus search_listings or compare_listings, and no mention of prerequisites. The only implicit guidance is the parent-vs-top-level distinction embedded in the sentence, which an agent must infer.

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 cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral facts not in the annotations: fixed page size of 20 and a default ordering of 'most checked facts first', which tells the agent what results and ordering to expect.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler. 'Filters of the site' is slightly vague phrasing, but the pointer to list_categories is efficiently placed.

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 6-parameter tool with a nested filters object of nine sub-properties and no output schema, the description is adequate but thin: it never hints at the result shape (listing fields, total count, pagination metadata) and delegates filter documentation to a sibling without explaining the filters object itself.

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 coverage is only 50%, and the description leaves query, where, page, category, and most filter sub-properties to the schema. It does clarify the default sort semantics ('most checked facts first') and points to list_categories for filter names/values, but that is partial compensation for the coverage gap.

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 and resource ('Find listings of Yoga-Ausbildungen') plus scope (site filters, 20 per page, checked-first ordering), which is far more than a restatement of the name. It does not explicitly contrast itself with get_listing or compare_listings, but it does name list_categories as the companion for filter discovery.

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 sentence about list_categories implies a workflow (discover filter names/values before searching) but never states when to use this tool versus get_listing or compare_listings, nor any exclusions. Usage is inferable rather than prescribed.

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