svs_werte

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies read-only reference data but never states that it takes no input, requires no auth, is static/offline, or how the values are structured in the response.

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 terse phrase with zero waste and the key qualifier (2026) front-loaded. However, terseness here borders on under-specification rather than efficiency.

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 must convey what comes back, and it partially does by enumerating the figure types. It still omits the shape of the result (per-year table, per-category values, units) and any behavioral notes, so an agent knows roughly what it gets but not the form.

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 to document; baseline 4 applies. The description does not introduce any parameters, which is consistent with the empty 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 phrase "SVS/GSVG-Werte 2026" names a specific resource and the parenthetical lists the contained figures (Beitragssätze, Mindest-/Höchstbeitragsgrundlage), so the agent can infer it is a static reference lookup. But there is no verb and no explicit statement that this returns reference values rather than computing anything, leaving the purpose somewhat implicit.

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 sibling svs_schaetzung, which plausibly covers estimation and would be the obvious alternative. The only cue is the parenthetical field list; there is no when/when-not statement.

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