sbb_get_real_estate_projects

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

Annotations already establish read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by disclosing that data is updated daily and that descriptions come in DE/FR/IT/EN, which are not evident from annotations. It also clarifies the output format (markdown/json) and return schema, giving the agent a fuller behavioral picture.

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 a clear header sentence, a data freshness/contents note, and separate Args and Returns blocks. It is not overly verbose, though the Args block duplicates schema property information. Overall, it is efficient and easy to scan, earning a solid score.

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 includes the output schema inline, compensating for the lack of a structured output schema. It covers the key fields (title, city, phase, start_of_construction, move_in, area_m2, description) and mentions daily updates. However, it does not address pagination limitations or error handling, which is a minor gap for a data retrieval 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 description provides meaningful examples for city ('Zürich', 'Bern', 'Luzern') and phase ('CONSTRUCTION', 'PLANNING'), and explains limit as 'Max. Resultate' and offset as 'Paginierung'. While the schema already describes city and phase, the description covers all parameters with usage context, adding value beyond raw schema definitions. The response_format parameter is also clarified with 'markdown' oder 'json'.

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 uses specific verb 'Ruft ab' (fetches/retrieves) with a clearly defined resource: 'SBB-Immobilien-Bauprojekte (Wohn- und Geschäftsbauten)'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like infrastructure construction projects by scope (real estate vs. infrastructure). The inclusion of a daily update note and field list further clarifies the specific resource.

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 implies usage for fetching real estate construction projects but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state exclusions or mention sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer context. The daily update note offers minimal contextual cue but not enough for clear alternative selection.

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