Callejear Germany

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral context beyond them: it warns that results carry no ranking and no reliable differentiation because identities and source data are unverified — important for interpreting 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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the operation and followed by the key caveat. No filler; every clause carries meaning.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The remaining gaps are the unexplained dimensions parameter and the absence of usage routing versus siblings, which leave the definition only minimally viable.

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% for both params. The description confirms the street_ids count constraint (2-5) but says nothing about the dimensions parameter (services.supermarkets/pharmacies/bakeries/cafes) or its meaning, leaving that enum undocumented outside 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 states a clear operation ('Zwei bis fünf historische Straßenkontexte nebeneinander') and scope (2-5 contexts), which distinguishes it from the read-only siblings get_street_context and search_streets. It stops short of stating an explicit comparison verb, but 'nebeneinander' (side by side) conveys the purpose adequately.

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 choose this over alternatives such as calling get_street_context repeatedly, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The '2 to 5' bound is implied scope rather than usage instruction.

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, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond annotations by disclosing data-quality caveats: no guarantee of official completeness, current publication, or indexing.

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 no filler; the scope statement leads and the limitation caveat follows. Well front-loaded, though the purpose sentence is somewhat abstract.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety, so the main gaps are the undocumented city_id parameter and the absence of when-to-use routing. Adequate but with clear omissions for a coverage-inspection 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 single parameter city_id is documented at 0% coverage and is never mentioned in the description, so the agent cannot learn what it does or its 12-digit format from the text. The phrase 'aller 16 Bundesländer' even implies nationwide scope, leaving the optional scoping parameter unexplained.

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 what the tool returns: coverage figures and limits ('Zahlen und Grenzen') for the historical catalog spanning all 16 German states, which is a specific resource distinct from the search/compare siblings. However, it never explicitly names or contrasts itself with those sibling tools, so differentiation relies on the 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 call this tool versus the siblings (search_streets, search_municipalities, compare_streets, get_street_context), nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer that this is a metadata/coverage inspection tool.

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 cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds substantial value on top: the data is historical and partial, scoped to a 500 m radius, carries no current-provision guarantee, and nulls mean 'unknown' rather than 'absent'. The null-semantics warning is exactly the kind of interpretive context an agent cannot get from annotations or schema.

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, tightly front-loaded: scope first, caveat second, null semantics last. Nothing is padded, though the brevity leaves documented gaps elsewhere.

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 output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the behavioral caveats are strong. But with 0% schema description coverage and no usage guidance, the description omits the most critical information an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly: what street_id must look like and what the dimensions argument controls.

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% across two parameters. The description indirectly implies street_id resolves to a 'stored centroid' but never names or constrains the parameter, and it says nothing at all about 'dimensions' and the four service categories it accepts. With no schema documentation, the description should compensate and does not.

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 the data source and scope (partial historical OSM observations within 500 m of the stored centroid), so an agent can infer it returns a single street's context. However, it never states the operation directly ('returns ... for street_id') and gives no differentiation from siblings like callejear_compare_streets or callejear_get_coverage. Purpose is implied rather than declared.

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 guidance, no mention of when to prefer this over get_coverage or compare_streets, and no indication of when the dimensions parameter should be supplied. The description only filters how to interpret output, not when to invoke the tool.

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, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful scoping detail that the 8-digit AGS is not officially validated here and that results are disambiguated by state, but says nothing about pagination behavior despite a cursor parameter.

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 tight sentences, all front-loaded with the core action first and the caveats after. Nothing is padded, though the terseness leaves little room for the missing pagination and disambiguation mechanics.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. The input semantics are reasonably complete, but the absence of any pagination or result-limiting guidance for a tool that exposes limit and cursor 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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It explains the query parameter well (name or historical 12-digit key, rejecting the 8-digit AGS), but the limit and cursor parameters are left entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 (suchen) and resource (Gemeinde) and explicitly names the lookup key types it accepts (Name oder historischer 12-stelliger Verwaltungsschlüssel). It also draws a clear boundary against the official 8-digit AGS, which distinguishes it from anything a caller might confuse it with among the street-oriented siblings.

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 useful input constraints (name or historical 12-digit key, not the official 8-digit AGS) and notes that same-named municipalities are differentiated by Bundesland. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over siblings like callejear_search_streets or callejear_get_coverage, so the routing guidance 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 readOnly/idempotent/closed-world, so the burden is lower. The description goes beyond them with genuinely useful context: results are historical record IDs, do not guarantee a unique real street, and catalog links are not verified live. It misses pagination behavior despite a cursor param, which keeps it from a 5.

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 with no filler; the scope statement is front-loaded before the caveats. It is terse and every sentence carries content, though the clipped style borders on cryptic.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the data-quality caveats are a good addition. But for a 4-parameter search tool with 0% schema coverage and a pagination parameter, the definition leaves an agent without enough to call it correctly or page results.

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% across 4 parameters (query, city_id, limit, cursor), and the description adds nothing about them—no format, no meaning of city_id's 12-digit pattern, no cursor semantics. With sub-50% coverage the description was expected to compensate and does not.

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-scope: 'Textsuche innerhalb einer Gemeinde' (text search within a municipality), which is clear enough to distinguish from verb-different siblings like compare_streets and get_street_context. However, it never names the resource ('Straße') explicitly, relying on the title, and it does not differentiate against search_municipalities, whose scope sounds nearly identical.

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 versus the five siblings, no prerequisites, and no note on how the cursor/limit pagination should be driven. The caveats given are data-quality warnings, not usage direction.

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