bakom_multi_standort_konnektivitaet

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the tool's safety profile is clear. The description adds behavioral context: it queries 5G and glass fiber status per location, returns a comparison table, and limits to 20 locations. This goes beyond the annotations. However, it does not mention error handling or data freshness, which would improve transparency.

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: a clear first sentence for purpose, then use cases, followed by structured 'Args' and 'Returns' sections with an output schema. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 complexity of comparing multiple locations and the presence of an output schema in the description, the tool is fairly complete. It covers what it does, how many locations, what data it returns, and use cases. It could mention error handling or data freshness, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke it 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 has only one parameter with 0% description coverage per the given context, so the description carries the burden. It explains the substructure of 'locations' (name, latitude, longitude) and mentions the optional response_format. This adds meaning beyond the schema's minimal descriptions. However, the schema's location items have 'additionalProperties: true', and the description's fields (lat, lon) align with the example in the schema description, adding clarity.

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 compares broadband and mobile coverage for multiple locations simultaneously ('Breitband- und Mobilfunkversorgung für mehrere Standorte gleichzeitig vergleichen'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like bakom_mobilfunk_abdeckung (single location) and bakom_broadband_coverage (single location). The use cases further reinforce the multi-location comparison purpose.

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 provides explicit use cases (Schulhausvergleiche, Standortentscheide, Digitale-Chancengleichheit-Analysen) which guide when to use this multi-location tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for single-location queries, which would strengthen guidance. The context from sibling tools implies single-location alternatives, but a clear reference would be better.

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