bakom_medienstruktur_info

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

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety and idempotency are clear. The description adds that the tool returns structured data from reports and metadata but does not disclose further behavioral traits like response limits or authentication. The added value is minor, earning a 3.

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 structured with a docstring including Args, Returns, and a Schema example, but it is somewhat verbose. The schema example partly duplicates information already in the input schema and output description. It could be more concise to improve readability, giving a score of 3.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, usage context, parameter guidance (though slightly off), and includes an output schema example. For a tool with one nested parameter, good annotations, and an output schema implied, the description is largely complete. Minor improvements could align parameter guidance more closely with the schema, earning a 4.

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 description's Args section lists specific thema values ('radio', 'tv', 'online', 'print', 'medien'), which adds some meaning beyond the top-level param lacking description. However, the actual nested schema is more detailed (default 'breitband', many valid search terms), and the description's list is oversimplified and slightly inconsistent. With 0% top-level schema coverage, the description partially compensates but with some inaccuracy, scoring 3.

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 returns structured information about the Swiss media landscape based on BAKOM reports and opendata.swiss metadata, specifically listing media sectors (Radio, TV, Online, Print). This verb+resource combination is specific and distinct from siblings like broadband or mobile coverage tools, earning 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 mentions the tool is 'ideal for media education and strategic analyses', which implies a usage context but does not specify when not to use it or compare with alternatives such as 'bakom_medien_statistik'. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, so the guidance is only implicitly stated, scoring 3.

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