Containerdienst-Regional

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description still earns credit by adding return-shape behavior (at most 15 providers, price range may be absent 'wenn vorhanden', net per tonne) and reaffirming that nothing is changed or sent. It does not cover failure behavior when no provider matches.

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 front-loads the action and scope, followed by a short negation that earns its place as a safety signal. Slightly run-on, but no filler.

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 carries the return-value burden and does describe the key outputs (provider list, bounded count, optional price range). It leaves the response structure and the empty-result case unstated, but an agent has enough to call and interpret 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 coverage is 100% with both parameters documented and the enum fully annotated, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates that PLZ is German and that Abfallart drives the price range, which the schema already says, so no meaningful value is added.

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 concrete verb (findet) plus the resource (regionale Containerdienste) and pins the scope to a PLZ with a bounded result ('bis zu 15'). It implicitly contrasts with the send-oriented sibling via 'verschickt nichts', but never names anfrage-senden or formular-link, so sibling differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.

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 implied — 'an die eine Anfrage ... gehen würde' suggests this is the lookup step that precedes anfrage-senden — but the description never states when to choose this over the alternatives or what prerequisites apply. Adequate context, no explicit routing.

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 write, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: a two-step flow where the inquiry is only forwarded to up to 15 regional providers after the user confirms on the website, and that forwarding requires explicit consent. It does not cover permissions, failure modes, or duplicate-submission 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?

Three dense sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The 'Variante B' label is slightly opaque without context about variant A, but otherwise the prose is efficient.

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 16-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description explains the process and outcome (confirmation email, later forwarding) reasonably well. It omits what happens when consent is false, error/duplicate behavior, and the distinction from the sibling formular-link variant.

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%, so all 16 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only reinforces the semantics of nutzer_hat_zugestimmt, adding no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 concrete verb and resource: it creates an inquiry in the user's name and sends a confirmation email. The 'Variante B' prefix implies an alternative variant but never names or contrasts the sibling tools (anbieter-suchen, formular-link), so an agent must infer which path applies.

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 establishes a precondition (explicit consent via nutzer_hat_zugestimmt) and describes the gated flow, which implies when the tool is valid. However, there is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternative guidance against formular-link, which appears to be the other submission variant.

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, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds meaningful workflow context: the user fills in contact data, consents to privacy terms, and sends the request themselves, and the tool sends nothing. It also notes all fields are optional, though that repeats the schema's zero required parameters.

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?

Front-loads the core action and variant. Four short sentences with minimal waste, though the final 'Alle Felder sind optional' is redundant given the schema, and 'Verschickt nichts' is a useful but isolated negation.

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 15-parameter, zero-required link generator with no output schema, the description explains what the link is for and the user workflow, but does not describe the returned link format, persistence, or how to use it after creation.

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 15 documented parameters. The description adds only 'Alle Felder sind optional', which is already implied by required=0 in the schema, so it does not deepen parameter understanding 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Erstellt einen Link zu unserem Anfrageformular' with prefilled data. It distinguishes itself from the sending sibling via 'Verschickt nichts', making clear this generates a link while anfrage-senden would send directly.

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?

Provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison to the sibling 'anfrage-senden'. 'Variante A' and 'Verschickt nichts' hint at the use case but do not state conditions for selecting this tool over the alternatives.

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