KIPODE - KI Politik Deutschland

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds ordering (newest first), the content types included, and the limit default and ceiling, which is meaningful context beyond the structured fields. It stops short of describing pagination or what happens beyond the newest set.

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 one front-loaded sentence covering purpose, ordering, return fields, and the one optional parameter. Every element earns its place; the parenthetical content list is slightly dense but not wasteful.

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 usefully enumerates the returned fields, and with one optional parameter it covers the default and cap. For a simple read-only listing tool this is close to complete, missing only guidance on when to choose it over sibling tools.

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 0% and the schema itself only carries numeric bounds, so the description must compensate. It does so by supplying the default (10) and repeating the maximum (30), which the schema does not state as a default. The meaning of the single parameter is therefore clear.

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 a specific resource and scope: newest updates on kipode.de, covering KI-Radar and topic-page updates. It also states the return shape (date, category, summary, link), so an agent knows what it gets without opening the schema. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with siblings like suche or themen, which keeps it below a 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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance; the agent must infer from the name and siblings that this lists recent items rather than performing keyword search (suche) or browsing categories (themen). Nothing tells the agent to prefer or avoid this tool in overlapping situations.

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 and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful content scope (topic list, sourced figures, publisher/principles) but does not say what the response looks like — plain text vs. markdown, length, or whether links are enumerated.

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?

Content is front-loaded in one dense sentence with the identity and the topic enumeration ahead of the secondary publisher/links detail. The parenthetical topic list is long but each item conveys real scope, so little is wasted.

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 parameterless, read-only, output-schema-less info tool, the description covers what content exists and what it is grounded in. The only real gap is guidance on how this resource relates to the sibling topic and news tools.

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 no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies a zero-argument call by describing a single static resource.

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 concretely identifies the resource: a fact-based overview of Germany in 2026 plus publisher, principle and links, and glosses the acronym KIPODE and its domain. It is clearly an informational 'about' page, which distinguishes it implicitly from siblings like aktuelles or suche, though it never names those alternatives to make the split 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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the orientation/background resource to read before topical lookups. There is no explicit 'use this when...' clause and no pointer to which sibling to use for news, search or topic pages instead.

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 and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds a genuinely useful behavioral clarification – 'Does not send anything' preempts the common misreading of 'contact' as a send-message action. It does not describe the return shape, but the key behavioral risk is covered.

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 content list front-loaded and the disambiguating negation last. Slightly telegraphic phrasing ('imprint' for Impressum) but nothing superfluous.

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 parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description only needs to say what information is returned – which it does by enumerating e-mail, corrections address, and imprint.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; 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?

Describes a specific resource set – contact e-mail, corrections address, and imprint – which is clearly distinct from siblings like suche, themen, and aktuelles. It is a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource statement, and it never names a sibling, so it falls short of a 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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers this is the tool for contact/imprint information. The negation 'Does not send anything' steers away from treating it as a messaging tool, but no explicit when-to-use conditions or named alternatives are given.

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 and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts beyond that: menus are stripped from the payload, and long pages are truncated after max_chars with a stated default of 60000, which tells the agent output may be incomplete.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the return format before input requirements and the truncation caveat. No filler; the only slight friction is saying 'url or path' while the parameter is named url, which takes a beat to reconcile.

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-parameter, no-output-schema tool this is nearly complete: return format, menu stripping, truncation, and both accepted input forms are covered. What remains unstated is error behavior for invalid or off-site URLs and whether the relative path is resolved against kipode.de.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameters, and it does: it clarifies that the url field also accepts a site-relative path (e.g. "/insolvenzen/") and explains what max_chars controls plus its default. Only the schema's min/max bounds for max_chars are left to the schema itself, which is a minor omission.

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: returns a kipode.de page as clean Markdown, and even enumerates what is kept (text, tables, sources) and stripped (menu). It scopes to kipode.de but never names the siblings (suche, themen, aktuelles) to differentiate itself from them 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?

Gives concrete input examples (a full URL and the relative path "/insolvenzen/"), which implies how to call it, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over sibling tools like themen or suche, nor any when-not guidance such as non-kipode.de URLs.

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 and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that the corpus is all sections of kipode.de and that results are pages plus section anchors, which is genuine context beyond the annotations. However, matching semantics (exact vs. partial, case, stemming), result limits, and ordering are never disclosed.

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 tight sentences with the scope front-loaded and the return information following. "Required: query" partially duplicates the schema's required array, but it is a single short clause and does no real harm.

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 annotations covering safety and no output schema to explain, the description covers scope, query language, and result shape. Only result-volume and ranking/matching behavior are missing, which are minor for a simple full-text search.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden, and it does partially: it clarifies that the query should be a German word or phrase (not an ID or URL) and repeats that it is required. It stops short of explaining matching behavior or quoting/syntax rules, so it only half-compensates 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 ("Searches all sections of kipode.de") and even sketches the return shape ("matching pages and section anchors"). It does not explicitly name a sibling to differentiate from, but none of the listed siblings (aktuelles, kontakt, themen, seite_als_markdown, kipode_info) are search tools, so the role is unambiguous in practice.

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 conveys the broad use case (find pages by word/phrase site-wide) but gives no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, no note on how to follow up (e.g. use seite_als_markdown to read a hit), and no exclusions. A user still has to infer that this is the entry point for discovery versus the other page-oriented siblings.

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 and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior beyond the annotations and schema: the exact fields returned per page including both a human URL and a Markdown URL, and a default limit of 30 which appears nowhere in the input schema. It does not state result ordering or whether more than 200 results can be paged.

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 naming the resource and its return fields, followed by a compact 'Optional:' clause covering all three parameters. Dense but waste-free; only the parenthetical German example list is slightly longer than strictly necessary.

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 three-optional-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers enough to invoke it and even describes the payload fields. However, it omits the meaning of the enum values and any pagination or result-order information, which are the remaining things an agent would need to use it confidently.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it names all three parameters: query's matching scope (title/description/URL) plus the practical hint that German terms work best with examples, and limit's default of 30. The main gap is that the four 'type' enum values are restated but never explained semantically, so the agent cannot tell what distinguishes 'themenseite' from 'ki-radar' or 'beruf'.

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 ('Lists kipode.de pages') and enumerates the returned fields (title, description, last update, URL, Markdown URL), which is concrete. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the overlapping siblings 'suche' and 'aktuelles', so the agent must infer that this is the browse/list endpoint rather than the search endpoint.

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: use it to list pages, optionally narrowing with query or type. There is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no reference to the sibling search tool ('suche'), even though the 'query' parameter makes the two functionally adjacent. An agent could guess correctly, but the routing decision 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.