Sonstige Sammlungen durchsuchen

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context by listing the collection codes (PruefGewO, Avsv, Spg, etc.) and showing example queries, which clarifies the tool's scope beyond the safety flags. No contradictions are present.

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 well-structured: an opening purpose statement, a usage note, a bulleted list of applications, and five example queries. Despite the tool's complexity, every section is purposeful and front-loaded. The content is dense but not verbose, earning a perfect score.

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?

This is a complex tool with 32 parameters, but the description covers its purpose, usage context, all application codes, and practical examples. The output schema and 100% schema description coverage handle parameter details and return values. For a search tool of this complexity, the description is complete.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by including concrete example queries that demonstrate how parameters combine (e.g., applikation='Mrp', suchworte='Budget', einbringer='BMF...'). This practical illustration exceeds what the schema alone provides, raising the score to 4.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search miscellaneous Austrian legal collections (Sonstige).' It then enumerates the eight collections, making the scope concrete. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools by naming a 'use X instead' alternative, 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?

The description clearly states 'Use this tool for specialized legal documents and historical materials,' giving an explicit context for when to use it. It also provides example queries per application, which is practical guidance. It does not mention sibling alternatives or exclusion criteria, keeping it at a 4.

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