epl_ggsl_abfrage

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description does not contradict this. Moreover, it adds valuable behavioral context by stating that the tool provides legal basis and official BAG source information, which is beyond what annotations provide.

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 concise, with no extraneous words. It front-loads the main action and includes a clear use case section that adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool has a simple input (one required parameter plus optional format) and an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description covers the purpose, usage, and behavioral context thoroughly. It provides sufficient information for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (geburtsgebrechen_nr and format), so schema coverage is high. The description adds an example use case (e.g., '313' for Diabetes) which helps parameter understanding, justifying a score above baseline.

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 clearly states the tool checks GGSL coverage for birth defects, specifying the exact use case: to answer which medications the IV covers for a given birth defect number. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool epl_sl_suche by noting the difference between IV and OKP benefits.

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 explicitly provides when to use the tool: to determine IV coverage for birth defects. It includes a contrasting sibling tool (epl_sl_suche) for OKP coverage, giving clear guidance on alternatives.

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