bakom_telekomstatistik_uebersicht

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the description's burden is lower. The description adds that the tool queries the opendata.swiss CKAN API and returns overviews with download links, which is useful context. However, it does not significantly expand on behavioral traits beyond the annotations, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 an Args/Returns/Schema section, and the purpose is front-loaded. It is not overly long, and each section adds information. The inclusion of a sample output schema is helpful. Minor redundancy: the 'Schema' section repeats some structure already in the input schema, but it is still clear.

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?

The description covers the return value (a string with download links) and provides a sample JSON schema of the data structure. However, there is a slight inconsistency: it says 'Returns: str' but then shows a JSON object schema. This could confuse an agent. Given the complexity and the presence of annotations and output schema, the description is mostly complete but has this minor flaw.

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 tool description must compensate for parameter understanding. The description lists example thema values ('breitband', 'mobilfunk', etc.) and mentions format, but the input schema itself has a very detailed description of the 'thema' parameter (about search behavior and effective keywords). The tool description's parameter section is a simplified summary that lacks the nuanced search behavior, and it does not explain the 'response_format' enum. Thus it adds limited value beyond the schema.

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 retrieves overviews of Swiss telecommunications statistics from BAKOM datasets, with specific domains (Festnetz, Mobilfunk, etc.). It uses a specific verb ('abrufen') and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like bakom_broadband_coverage or bakom_breitbandatlas_datensaetze, which might also provide statistics, so it's not a 5.

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 mentions use cases ('Marktanalysen, politische Berichte, KI-Fachgruppe-Demos'), giving context for when to use the tool. But it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling tool to choose instead, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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