bakom_medienstruktur_info

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, which the description does not contradict. However, the description introduces confusion by describing a different set of topics than the schema, and it does not clarify why the schema values differ. The added 'Schema' block in the description is informal and may misrepresent the actual output.

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 moderately concise but contains redundant elements (e.g., both 'Returns' and a separate 'Schema' block). The mismatch between description and schema adds unnecessary cognitive load. Front-loading is adequate.

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?

Despite having one parameter and an output schema (though not formally provided), the description is incomplete due to the inconsistency with the input schema. Important details about valid topic values and the actual output structure are missing or contradictory.

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 0%, so the description must fully explain parameters. It lists topics (radio, tv, online, print, medien) that do not match the schema's enum values (breitband, mobilfunk, festnetz, etc.). This contradiction provides no meaningful semantics and actively misleads the agent.

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 claims the tool provides information about media sectors (radio, TV, online, print) but the input schema defines 'thema' with telecom-related values (breitband, mobilfunk, etc.). This mismatch undermines clarity and misleads the agent about the tool's actual functionality.

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 states it's ideal for media education and strategic analyses but provides no comparison to sibling tools like bakom_telekomstatistik_uebersicht or bakom_rtv_suche. There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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