quellen katalog

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful piece of context the annotations cannot: the data is drawn from '04 Rechtsquellen/Quellen.md'. It says nothing about return format or freshness, so it adds moderate rather than rich context.

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 compact sentence with the source location front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized, though the noun-phrase construction makes it slightly less actionable than a verb-first phrasing would be.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is adequate: it names the resource and its backing file. It still omits what the catalog returns (entries, fields, structure), which is the one thing an agent would want before invoking 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?

The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. Baseline 4 applies; the description neither helps nor harms here.

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 identifies the resource (a shared access catalog of official legal sources) and even names its backing file, but it uses a noun phrase rather than a verb, so it never states what the tool actually does (return/list/read). It does not distinguish itself from the related sibling quelle_eintragen, which handles entering sources.

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 statement of when to call this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer instead. The only implicit cue is 'Zugangskatalog', leaving the agent to infer that this is the read side versus quelle_eintragen's write side.

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