bakom_sendeanlagen_suche

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context by stating it returns a list of installations with operator and type, and includes a return schema example. This supplements annotations without contradiction.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line purpose, use cases, args/returns/schema blocks. It front-loads the key verb and resource. However, the inclusion of a 'Schema' block in the description (though helpful) slightly lengthens it; still appropriately sized.

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 has a small parameter set and an output schema (which the description includes), the description covers what the tool does, when to use it, and what it returns. It lacks explicit details about coordinate system or response format options, but overall is sufficient for an agent to use 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 description only briefly mentions parameters as 'Koordianten WGS84, Suchradius, Format' without detailing each. With schema description coverage reported as 0%, the description does little to compensate. The input schema itself has descriptions, but the description adds minimal value beyond that.

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 starts with a clear verb and resource: 'Mobilfunkanlagen und Sendeanlagen in einem Umkreis suchen.' It specifies the tool finds antenna sites (mobile and broadcast) within a radius. Use cases (schools, media planning, infrastructure analysis) differentiate it from sibling tools like coverage or frequency 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 example use cases (schools, media planning) which imply when to use, but it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives like coverage tools. No exclusionary guidance is given, so the agent may not know to avoid this for coverage queries.

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