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

无注解，描述承担全部行为披露责任。它明确揭示了三个关键行为：有意包含成本相近的市镇（不排除）、基于缓存数据可能导致部分结果、响应会报告覆盖候选数。这些信息超出了基本'排名'的含义，帮助代理设定预期。

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?

两句话完成核心功能定义和限制说明，第一句话前置排名逻辑，第二句话补充数据局限性。没有任何冗余信息，每个字都发挥作用。

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?

没有输出schema，描述部分说明了返回内容（排名和覆盖数），但未描述返回列表的结构（如是否包含市镇名、节省金额）、排序方向（降序/升序）或可选参数（如currentRooms）如何影响计算。对于一个6参数的工具，这些缺口中等严重。

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覆盖率100%，每个参数都有描述。描述本身未增加参数语义，仅通过'stated current home'隐含关联currentBfsId。按基线规则，在高覆盖情况下即使无额外参数信息也评为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?

描述以具体动词'Ranks'开头，指定资源'municipalities'和排名标准（更便宜或低于CHF 1000/年以内，按年度税收节省额）。这与兄弟工具如tax_lookup（单一税额查询）或municipality_seearch（搜索）有明显区别，代理能清晰识别其功能。

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?

描述说明了数据来源（缓存）和结果可能不完整，但未明确说明何时使用此工具而非tax_lookup或municipality_detail，也未提及替代方案或排除条件。使用场景是隐含的，需要代理自行推断。

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