bakom_rtv_suche

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds significant behavioral context: it clarifies that the search is full-text based, not faceted, that the catalog has no facets for media_type and kanton, and that it returns datasets from the catalog, not individual stations. It also mentions output format options. The 'Returns: str' line is slightly ambiguous but resolved by the output schema and format parameter.

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 reasonably concise (around 150 words) and well-structured. It starts with the purpose, then explains what it returns and what it does not, followed by parameter behavior notes, and ends with a structured Args/Returns/Schema section. Every sentence contributes value, though the 'Returns: str' section could be slightly clearer.

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's moderate complexity (one parameter object with multiple sub-parameters, output schema, annotations), the description is comprehensive. It covers the search scope, limitations (non-exact filtering, alternative source), output format, and provides an example output schema. The description, combined with annotations and input schema, gives the agent everything needed to use 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description must add meaning beyond the schema. The description compensates well by explaining that media_type and kanton are full-text search terms that weight results, not exact filters, and that the catalog has no faceted filtering for these. This adds crucial usage semantics not fully captured by the schema descriptions alone.

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: searching BAKOM datasets on opendata.swiss for radio and television. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting it returns catalog datasets, not individual stations, and points to an alternative source for concessionaire details. This is specific and helps differentiate from other BAKOM tools.

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 clear usage context: it explains that the tool searches the BAKOM catalog, not individual stations, and that for specific concessionaire info one should use the RTV-Datenbank web interface. It also explains that media_type and kanton are not exact filters but full-text search terms. However, it does not explicitly compare with all sibling tools or list when to prefer this tool over others.

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