bakom_mobilfunk_abdeckung

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

Annotations indicate readOnly, idempotent, openWorld. The description adds behavioral details: resolution (100x100m), outdoor-only coverage, and that it returns provider count. No contradictions.

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 well-structured with sections and front-loaded purpose, but includes an inline schema that could be omitted for brevity. Still, every sentence adds value.

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 output schema is present, the description adequately explains return values and coverage details. It covers all necessary context for a read-only query tool.

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 summarizes parameters as 'coordinates WGS84, generation, format' but adds little beyond the input schema, which already provides detailed descriptions for each field (latitude, longitude, generation, response_format). Schema coverage is high, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: query mobile network coverage (5G/4G/3G) for a Swiss location and show how many providers cover it outdoors. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like bakom_broadband_coverage or bakom_frequenzdaten.

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 tool versus alternatives. The sibling tools are listed but there is no contrast or explicit conditions for selection.

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