Unfallgeschehen Zeitreihe nach Branche (UVG/SSUV)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and side effects. The description adds valuable behavioral context by disclosing that each data point carries a 'significant' flag and instructing to report significance only when that flag is set, which prevents misinterpretation. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 five sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose ('Ten-year time series of accident indicators for one NOGA branch'), then the indicator list, then the significance caveat. Every sentence adds unique information; there is no fluff or repetition.

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 combination of the description, comprehensive input schema (100% coverage), and annotations is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly and interpret results. The description explains data content and significance, the schema covers parameter syntax, and an output schema exists to define the return structure. Minor gaps like explicit usage guidance vs the annual table remain, but they are not essential for correct invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema; the schema already documents noga constraints, indicator matching behavior, branch_type meaning, and response_format. The description's mention of the twelve indicators and significance flag concerns output semantics, not parameter semantics.

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 provides a ten-year time series of accident indicators for one NOGA branch, and lists the indicators (e.g., case risk per 1000 full-time equivalents, occupational diseases, severe accidents). It does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools such as seco_get_uvg_by_branch, so the differentiation is implied by the temporal scope rather than stated.

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 the tool is for time-series trend queries by branch, but it never explicitly says when to use this tool versus the annual table (seco_get_uvg_by_branch) or the overview. No exclusion criteria are given in the description text; the only relevant hint ('Ranges such as 41 - 42 exist only in the annual table') appears in the schema's noga field, not in the description.

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