saxsoc-public-info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that responses are source-based and limited, which is useful behavioral context, but it remains vague about what sources are used and what 'limited' means in practice.

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 description is short, but it merely restates the title and contributes little information. This is under-specification rather than deliberate conciseness; a one-sentence caveat does not earn its place as a functional description.

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?

Although the tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema) and annotations cover safety, the description leaves out essential usage context: what kind of query is accepted, what the response looks like, and how this tool relates to the sibling tools. An agent cannot reliably decide to call it based on this description.

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%, and the description does not compensate by explaining the 'query' parameter, expected input format, or how queries are interpreted. The schema only provides type and length constraints, so the agent has no semantic guidance beyond the parameter name.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings. The phrase 'no free AI consulting' implies a limitation, but it does not state when an agent should choose saxsoc-geo-ask over saxsoc-geo-search, saxsoc-geo-compare, or saxsoc-geo-next-step.

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, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds zero behavioral context beyond repeating the title; it doesn't explain what the tool does, what data it returns, or any side effects. For a tool with no other descriptive content, this is a significant gap.

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 description is extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. A single phrase that only restates the title fails to convey any usable information, so it does not earn credit for brevity.

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 a cryptic name, the description is the only source of meaning. It provides nothing beyond a label, making it completely inadequate for an agent to understand the tool's purpose or invoke it correctly.

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 no parameters in the schema, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters that don't exist. It neither adds nor detracts from parameter understanding.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus the siblings (e.g., ask, compare, search). There are no context hints or alternative routing instructions.

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 establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the caveat 'ohne Erfolgsgarantie' (without guarantee of success), which is a mild behavioral expectation-setter, but it does not disclose outcome format, failure modes, or comparison criteria.

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 description is a single short sentence with no filler or redundant clauses. It is front-loaded with the action and object, though it is essentially identical to the title and adds minimal structural value beyond that.

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?

Given the low complexity, no parameters, and read-only/idempotent annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema, it does not clarify what the comparison result looks like or what 'sachlich' comparison means in practice, leaving some ambiguity for an agent deciding whether this is the right tool.

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 has zero parameters and the schema already covers 100% of them. The description therefore has no parameter burden to carry, and the baseline of 4 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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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 agent can infer the tool is for comparing programs, but the description gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over sibling tools like saxsoc-geo-programs or saxsoc-geo-search. There are no exclusions or alternative conditions 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=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating a safe, non-mutating operation. The description adds 'keine Buchung oder Anmeldung ausführen,' which is consistent but largely redundant with the readOnly hint. It does not disclose other behaviors such as error handling, return format, or potential side effects beyond the read-only nature.

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 description is a single short sentence, which is concise in length, but it suffers from under-specification rather than being appropriately sized. It conveys a vague purpose and a disclaimer but omits necessary detail, so the conciseness does not add value.

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?

The tool has one annotated read-only operation with a parameter that is entirely unexplained. Even with annotations covering safety, the description fails to explain what the link is for, what the 'intent' values represent, or when this tool is the right choice. It is far from complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 schema has one parameter 'intent' with three enum values, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description makes no mention of this parameter—what it means, how to choose a value, or its effect on the returned link. With zero coverage and no description compensation, the agent has no way to correctly populate the parameter.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any condition, context, or scenario that would lead an agent to select this tool over siblings. No exclusions or prerequisites 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?

The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no further behavioral detail beyond the title, such as what 'with sources' means, how the explanation is returned, or any constraints on the operation.

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 description is very short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It duplicates the title and provides no structural information, so the brevity does not add value.

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?

The description is too minimal for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool with confidence. It does not explain the id values, output format, source references, or how this tool relates to the sibling tools, and there is no output schema to compensate.

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%, and the description does not mention the required 'id' parameter or explain the meaning of the enum values 'academy' and 'circle'. The description entirely fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus the sibling tools, nor any mention of alternatives or exclusions. The description only states the action without providing context on selection criteria.

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 behavior, so the description adds nothing beyond them. 'Erklären' is consistent with the annotations but provides no extra detail about content, limitations, or return 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?

The description is extremely short, but it is under-specification rather than purposeful conciseness. It repeats the title and earns no structural credit for conveying useful information efficiently.

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 parameter structure, the description is the only source of contextual meaning, yet it fails to explain what 'Academy und Circle aktuell' actually covers or how it relates to sibling tools. An agent cannot confidently select or invoke 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?

There are zero parameters and the schema is empty with 100% coverage, so there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. Baseline of 4 is appropriate because nothing further is needed.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The agent has no basis to choose this over saxsoc-geo-program, saxsoc-geo-compare, or saxsoc-geo-ask.

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 behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: returned guide content should be treated as source material, not as actionable instructions. This is genuinely useful for an AI agent deciding how to use the output.

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 description is a single compact sentence with no filler, and the key search action appears first. It is appropriately front-loaded. However, it duplicates the title verbatim rather than adding structured elaboration.

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 search tool with two basic parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and an important interpretation caveat. It does not mention result behavior, empty results, or how this relates to sibling tools, but the tool is simple enough that the description is minimally sufficient.

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%, and the description does not explain either parameter (query or limit). Since the description must compensate for missing schema descriptions, this is a clear gap. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but no additional semantics or constraints are communicated.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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 guidance about when to use this search tool versus siblings such as saxsoc-geo-ask, saxsoc-geo-compare, or saxsoc-geo-programs. The only contextual hint is about how to treat the results, not about when to invoke this tool instead of an alternative.

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