Berufsunfälle nach Wirtschaftszweig NOGA (UVG/SSUV)

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

Annotations already establish the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds a meaningful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: every response carries a totals check where parsed rows are summed and compared against the publication total. This gives the agent useful integrity context not present in the schema.

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 compact and front-loaded: scope first, then purpose/use case, then a behavioral guarantee. Every sentence earns its place, with no repetition of the title or redundant fluff.

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 input schema is highly detailed and an output schema is present, so the description rightly focuses on purpose, use case, and the totals-check behavior. There are no critical gaps for an agent to select and invoke this 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?

The description itself contains no parameter-specific guidance, but the input schema has 100% coverage with rich descriptions for noga, table, and response_format, including examples and grouping semantics. This meets the high-coverage baseline of 3.

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 names a specific resource — occupational accident and disease results per economic branch (NOGA 2008) — and states the analytical purpose: answering which branches carry which accident risk. The branch-level focus clearly separates it from overview and trend siblings, and the counterpart mention anchors it in vocational guidance.

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?

It gives a concrete use case: pair demand from seco_get_unemployment_by_occupation with occupational risk when making a Lehrberuf recommendation. It does not explicitly say when not to use it versus the other UGV tools, but the intended context is clear.

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