AnwaltX Passenger Rights & Legal Info (Germany/EU)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the legal basis and thresholds. However, with no output schema, the description says nothing about what the calculation returns (a payable amount? eligibility boolean?), which is a real gap for a calculator tool.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the regulatory basis and eligibility rules; almost no waste. The parenthetical is dense but functional, and the trailing English tagline adds little.

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?

Eligibility conditions are well covered for a five-parameter legal calculator, but with no output schema the description should describe the returned result (amount, currency, partial entitlement) and it does not. That omission leaves the agent guessing about the response.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds regulatory meaning the schema lacks: the 250 km distance floor and the 120-minute delay threshold give the agent context for what values of distance_km and departure_delay_min actually trigger compensation.

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 (Prüft/checks the compensation) and resource (Fernbus under VO (EU) 181/2011), and names the exact trigger conditions. It is clearly distinguishable from calculate_flight_compensation, calculate_train_compensation and calculate_ship_compensation without opening any schema.

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 spells out the eligibility context (route from 250 km, cancellation, or more than 120 minutes departure delay), which tells the agent when this tool applies. It does not explicitly name the sibling tools or state 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.

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds domain behavior beyond that: the output magnitude (250/400/600 €) and that the calculation includes Kürzung and Betreuungsleistungen, which the schema does not convey.

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 with the calculation scope front-loaded. The trailing English sentence largely restates the title and is redundant, but the overall length is well controlled.

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 an 8-parameter deterministic calculator with no output schema, the description supplies the key missing output context (payout tiers, reduction, care benefits). It stops short of explaining the full result shape or which inputs drive each tier, but is adequate overall.

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 100%, with each of the 8 parameters documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax, units, or conditional requirements beyond what the schema already states.

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 (Berechnet) and resource (Ausgleichszahlung nach EU-Verordnung 261/2004) with concrete payout tiers (250/400/600 €) and the three triggering scenarios. It clearly distinguishes itself from the bus/ship/train compensation siblings by naming the flight regulation.

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 enumerated cases (Verspätung, Annullierung, Nichtbeförderung) imply when the tool applies, matching the 'reason' enum. However, it never explicitly routes the agent to or away from the sibling compensation calculators, so the modal choice is left to inference.

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 and determinism profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds the legal calculation model (25/50% payout, duration-based threshold), which is useful domain context, but says nothing about the result format, rounding or currency of the computed amount.

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 tightly front-loaded sentences that lead with the action and the legal basis. The trailing English gloss ('EU ferry passenger compensation calculator') largely repeats the German sentence, which is mild redundancy but not enough to hurt usability.

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 pure deterministic calculator with three fully documented required inputs and no output schema, the description is adequate on inputs and the legal rule. It omits any indication of the return value (currency, rounding, whether a zero/denial result is possible), which is the main remaining gap since no output schema exists to cover it.

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 100% and all three required parameters are documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the rule that the threshold depends on planmäßiger Fahrtdauer, without giving units or syntax beyond what the schema already provides.

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 (berechnet die Entschädigung), the resource (verspätete Ankunft von Fähre oder Schiff) and the governing regulation (VO (EU) 1177/2010). The transport mode alone differentiates it from the bus/flight/train compensation siblings, so an agent can route correctly without opening any schema.

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 makes the applicability condition explicit: delayed arrival of a ferry or ship under Regulation 1177/2010, with the threshold tied to scheduled travel duration. It stops short of naming the sibling alternatives or stating when the tool does not apply, so it is clear context without full routing 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?

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds real domain behavior: the compensation tiers, flat rates for season tickets, and the €4 payout floor. It does not say what the response actually contains (amount only, eligibility flag, currency), so it stops short of fully characterizing behavior.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the verb, and the rule enumeration is dense but each clause (tiers, season-ticket flat rates, payout floor) carries distinct information. It is efficient, though the compressed legal shorthand assumes the reader parses several rules at once.

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 six-parameter calculator with full schema coverage, the description supplies the governing rules that make the numbers interpretable. With no output schema present, it should ideally state what is returned (e.g., a single EUR amount versus a structured eligibility result), which is the one remaining gap.

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 each parameter is documented in German directly in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description only marginally reinforces this by referencing 'Pauschalen für Zeitkarten', which maps to the ticket enum, without adding syntax or format detail beyond the 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Berechnet die Entschädigung bei Zugverspätung') and pins the legal basis (VO (EU) 2021/782), which cleanly separates it from the bus/flight/ship compensation siblings. An agent can identify the tool without opening the schema.

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?

It enumerates the triggering thresholds (25% from 60 min, 50% from 120 min) which implies when the tool is relevant, but never states when to prefer it or its siblings, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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, closed-world, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds genuinely useful scope context for a zero-parameter tool — that coverage spans Bahn, Fernbus, Schiff, Pauschalreise (not just flights) and includes forward-looking reform content — telling the agent what the knowledge base does and does not contain.

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 dense sentence with no filler, front-loaded on 'Fristen' then enforcement routes then the reform. It earns its length by enumerating distinct coverage areas, though the nested parenthetical lists are slightly heavy to parse.

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 and no parameters, the description must convey what comes back, and it does enumerate the topical contents well. It does not state the return format (structured list vs prose) or note the German/EU jurisdictional framing implied by LBA/EBA, which is a minor gap.

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 are zero parameters, so by rule the baseline is 4. No parameter semantics are needed and none are missing.

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 specific content: deadlines (limitation periods, application and reporting windows) across six transport/travel modes, enforcement routes (company, arbitration, LBA/EBA, EU small-claims), and the 2027 flight reform. That is clearly distinguishable from the calculate_* sibling tools and from search_legal_articles. It stops short of a clean verb+resource statement (the verb is only implicit in 'get'), hence a 4 rather than 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 topical enumeration implies the use case (fetch an aggregated overview of deadlines and enforcement paths), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives among the four legal-reference siblings. An agent must infer that this is the broad overview while search_legal_articles serves narrow article lookups.

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, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by stating the results carry links and listing the categories, but says nothing about pagination or result ordering, which is a modest gap rather than a serious one.

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 a trailing filter note. The long category enumeration is justified because it clarifies coverage, though it slightly bloats the sentence.

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 annotations covering safety, one fully-documented parameter, and no output schema, the description is complete: it establishes what is returned and how to filter. Nothing an agent needs before calling it 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 coverage is 100% and the single `topic` parameter is fully documented with examples ('Amazon', 'Shop', 'Reise'). The description only restates that filtering by topic is optional, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (free template generators) and enumerates the exact template categories returned (Impressum, AGB, Widerruf, etc.), which makes the purpose unmistakable. It is clearly distinct from the calculator/lookup siblings, though it never explicitly names them.

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?

'Optional nach Thema filtern' implies the usage pattern (list templates, optionally narrow by topic), but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, and no routing to the sibling lookup/calculator tools. Usage is only implied.

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, closed-world and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the glossary's subject-matter coverage and the default of returning all terms when no query is supplied. It still says nothing about result size or truncation, but with strong annotations a 4 is fair.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the verb+resource leads and the fallback behavior follows. The trailing 'German legal glossary' is mildly redundant with the domain list but costs little.

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 single-optional-parameter, read-only glossary lookup with full annotations and no output schema, the description supplies what is needed: what is searched, over which domains, and what happens without a query. Only the sibling boundary and result-size behavior are unaddressed.

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 100% and the single parameter's meaning is already documented in the schema (with an example, 'Abmahnung'). The description's 'Ohne query: alle Begriffe' adds the effect of omitting the parameter, but that is the only semantic addition, so the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Schlägt juristische Begriffe im AnwaltX-Rechtsglossar nach') and scopes the glossary's domains (E-Commerce, Datenschutz, Wettbewerbs-, Marken- und Vertragsrecht). It is clear on its own, but never names or contrasts with the nearest sibling (search_legal_articles), so the agent must infer the boundary.

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?

'Ohne query: alle Begriffe' gives one conditional behavior, which is a partial usage hint. There is no statement of when to prefer this over search_legal_articles or list_free_legal_templates, and no exclusions, so selection between siblings is left to inference.

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, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them by naming the returned fields (Titel, Kurztext, Link), which matters because there is no output schema. It stops short of describing result limits or pagination for a search tool.

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 states the action, the corpus, an illustrative field list, and the return payload with no filler. Every clause earns its 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?

For a one-parameter search tool with full schema coverage, no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers purpose and return fields adequately. The only gap is the absence of any note on result count or ranking behaviour, which is minor here.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents 'query' with its own example. The description's phrase "nach Stichwort" merely restates the parameter, matching the baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas.

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 concrete verb ("Durchsucht") and a specific resource ("veröffentlichte Artikel im AnwaltX-Blog"), plus example topics (Amazon-Seller-Probleme, DSGVO im Onlinehandel) that pin down the domain. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like lookup_legal_term or list_free_legal_templates, but the blog-article scope is narrow enough that an agent can separate it from the compensation calculators and template tools.

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 statement of when this tool should be chosen over lookup_legal_term, list_free_legal_templates, or the calculators, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions. The only implicit guidance is the topic examples, which hint at the subject matter but not at tool selection.

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