GründerX Founder Events, Deadlines & Startup Credits (Germany)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one behavioral detail — results are sorted by deadline — but says nothing about result volume, pagination or empty-result 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?

Front-loaded with the resource and scope, but the sentence is then repeated verbatim in English. The bilingual duplication doubles the length without adding information for the caller.

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 no output schema and fully documented parameters, the description covers purpose, domain and ordering. Only minor gaps remain around result format and pagination, which the annotations partly compensate for.

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 three parameters (art, region, within_days) are already documented, including enum values and the Bundesland list. The description adds no additional constraint or format detail, 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 (lists) and a precise resource (application deadlines for German startup competitions, awards, grants and accelerators), plus the sort order. The resource is clearly distinct from the siblings (guide, events, credits), though none are named.

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 domain scope implies when this tool applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or reference to the sibling tools for related but different needs.

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 non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful behavioral fact that a missing slug yields a list rather than an error, but says nothing about return format, pagination, or article size. That is roughly the level of added context the calibration example credits with 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?

Two compact sentences with the mode-switching rule front-loaded; the parenthetical topic list is long but earns its place by supporting topical matching and sibling disambiguation. No filler sentences.

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 two-optional-parameter read tool with full annotations and no output schema, the description covers both invocation modes and even signals the content language (German). Only minor gaps remain, such as what an article response contains.

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. The description goes slightly beyond the schema by specifying the conditional relationship between the two optional parameters — slug selects one article, its absence switches to list mode where query acts as a keyword filter — which the schema only hints at.

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 (GründerX-Ratgeber / founder guides) and enumerates its topic scope (Rechtsformen, UG/GmbH, Kleinunternehmer, Förderung, Steuern, E-Commerce, Versicherungen, International), which is enough to separate it from the sibling tools covering deadlines, events, and credits. It does not state the verb explicitly, but 'Ohne slug: Liste der Artikel' makes the read/list operation clear.

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 gives clear operational context for both modes: omit slug to get the article list, optionally narrowed by Stichwort. That tells the agent when to use the list mode versus fetching a single article, though it names no explicit alternatives or exclusions among the sibling tools.

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 fully covered. The description usefully adds that results are scoped to Germany and limited to upcoming events, which is real behavioral context, but it says nothing about sorting, pagination behavior beyond the limit param, or result freshness.

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 resource and scope followed by the filter list. The closing English sentence ('Finds upcoming founder events in Germany.') is largely a restatement of the German opening, which is mild waste but not harmful.

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 eight-parameter, zero-required, fully-schema-documented read-only search with no output schema, the description covers geography, temporal scope and event taxonomy adequately. An agent could call it correctly, though the absence of any note on result ordering or what a returned event contains leaves a small 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 description coverage is 100% and the schema itself carries the enum values, the Bundesland code list, the date format and the default for limit/from_date, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description echoes five of the eight dimensions (region, art, format, dates, query) but adds no syntax or semantics beyond what is already documented, and never mentions free_only or limit.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource (upcoming founder events in Germany) and enumerates the concrete event categories (IHK/HWK-Gründerabende, Netzwerk-Treffen, Konferenzen, Hackathons, Build-Sessions, Webinare), so the agent knows exactly what corpus is searched. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the nearest sibling list_founder_deadlines, which is a plausible confusion point.

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 implies usage by listing the filterable dimensions (Bundesland, Art, Format, Zeitraum, Stichwort), which tells the agent what it can narrow by. But there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or routing to alternatives such as list_founder_deadlines or read_founder_guide.

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 non-open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that results include eligibility prerequisites and come from official provider pages, but says nothing about result scope, ordering, or freshness.

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 resource is front-loaded, but the single sentence is a dense run-on list, and the trailing English fragment 'Finds startup credit programs.' is a redundant partial translation of the title that adds no 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 needed and all parameters documented in the schema, the description covers the tool's scope, data source, and optional eligibility filtering adequately. Only minor gaps remain around return behavior and result ordering.

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 all four parameters are already documented with descriptions and an enum. The description restates the eligibility filters (founding age, financing) that map to company_age_years and has_investor but adds no further syntax or semantics.

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 verb (find/search) and resource (startup credit programs covering cloud, AI, hosting, software, etc.) with the added scope of benefits and eligibility requirements sourced from official provider pages. It is clear but does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like search_founder_events or read_founder_guide.

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 implies when the tool is useful (finding credit/discount programs) and notes that eligibility filtering by founding age and financing is optional. However, it never states when NOT to use it or which sibling to prefer for related founder needs like deadlines or events.

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