Berufsunfälle und Berufskrankheiten – Schlüsselzahlen (UVG/SSUV)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond the annotations by stating that the data is published by KSUV/SSUV c/o Suva rather than SECO, and by specifying the all-insurer, five-year scope. It does not disclose further operational behavior such as update cadence or data freshness.

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 three sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states what is returned, the second details scope and metrics, and the third adds source and positioning. Key information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 that an output schema exists and annotations cover safety and idempotence, the description is largely complete for calling the tool correctly: it supplies the source, geographic scope, insurer coverage, time window, and relation to the server's unemployment tools. An explicit pointer to the UVG branch/trend sibling tools would improve completeness but is not essential.

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 100%, and the schema already fully documents the three parameters: years (with min, max, default), response_format (enum with default), and include_non_occupational (with default and explanatory note). The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond broad scope context, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 that the tool returns Switzerland-wide key figures on occupational accidents and diseases, enumerates the specific metrics (registered/accepted cases, occupational diseases, pensions, fatalities, costs) and fixes the scope (22 insurers, five recent years). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from seco_get_uvg_by_branch or seco_get_uvg_trends, though the 'overview' and 'all 22 insurers' framing implies the difference.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: it complements the unemployment tools on the same server and covers the risk side of the labour market rather than the demand side. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives such as the branch or trend UVG tools, stopping short of a full exclusion-based guideline.

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