elster_submission_protocol

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it declares 'Read-only' and warns that results contain 'real personal tax data'. The parameter note about each protocol being a round-trip with a default of 3 also discloses cost behavior. Missing only permission/auth specifics.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what is read, then the selection modes and safety note. Dense but every clause carries information; only mildly long-winded.

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?

No output schema or annotations exist, so the description must cover returns and safety, and it does: it describes the returned fields, the sensitivity of the data, and the read-only nature. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly, though pagination/ordering behavior is unstated.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds the either/or grouping semantics (nachrichtId OR formFilter/years) that the flat schema does not express, which is meaningful selection guidance.

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 (reads the Übertragungsprotokoll of already-submitted returns) and enumerates the returned content (Zeile number, label, value, ELSTER field id). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling elster_submissions_list by naming it as the source for nachrichtId.

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?

Gives the two selection modes explicitly — by nachrichtId (obtained from elster_submissions_list) or by formFilter/years — and states the purpose (earlier years as context). No explicit when-not guidance, but the routing is unambiguous.

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