lobbywatch_get_transparenzquote

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description adds value by stating it aggregates and returns a distribution. No contradiction. The description provides sufficient behavioral context for a read-only, idempotent tool.

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 with a summary sentence and three bullet-point use cases. Every sentence adds value and the structure is front-loaded with the core action.

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 one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers the main purpose and usage scenarios adequately. It does not discuss limits or edge cases but is complete for a simple aggregation 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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description mentions commission filtering and uses cases reference specific commissions. However, it does not explicitly describe the parameter name or format, leaving some ambiguity despite the context.

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 aggregates 'verguetungstransparenz_beurteilung' values across parliamentarians or a commission subset and returns the distribution. It provides specific verb 'Aggregate' and resource, and the use cases differentiate it from siblings like 'lobbywatch_get_ranking'.

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 gives explicit use cases (e.g., 'How transparent is the FK-N on compensation disclosure?') and implies when to use, but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives among sibling tools.

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