Arbeitsmarkt-Datensätze suchen

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

The description goes beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations by disclosing that the search is not SECO-filtered (contrary to what the tool name and title might imply), that the old filter targeted a non-existent organization and caused zero results, and that results include their publisher with different survey methodologies. This is significant behavioral context that prevents the agent from assuming the results are SECO official statistics.

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 verbose, spending several sentences on the historical 404 issue and the distinction between SECO and ILO statistics. While informative, it is not tightly front-loaded; the key usage fact (search over all datasets, results include publisher) could be conveyed in two sentences. It earns a middle score for offering useful detail at the cost of brevity.

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?

For a search tool with an output schema and full parameter documentation, the description adequately covers the critical caveat that results come from various publishers and are not SECO-specific. It also explains potential empty-result scenarios. The only missing piece is explicit routing guidance to sibling tools, but the output schema likely covers return structure.

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 already provides comprehensive descriptions for query, limit, and response_format (100% coverage), including examples and defaults. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, so it relies on the schema, yielding baseline score.

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 opens with 'Sucht Arbeitsmarkt-Datensätze auf opendata.swiss', a specific verb+resource statement that clearly identifies a search tool over a public data catalog. It differentiates from siblings (seco_get_* specific indicators) by focusing on dataset discovery rather than retrieving a specific metric.

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 provides context that the search covers the entire opendata.swiss catalog, not just SECO, and explains the historical filtering that caused empty results. However, it does not explicitly tell the agent when to choose this search tool over the seco_get_* siblings, nor when not to use it; usage is implied rather than stated.

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