SRG SSR Audio – Live-Radiosender

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns all live stations for a business unit, notes that RTR and SWI have few or no live channels, and explains the relationship to the EPG tool. This goes beyond the structured hints 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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and structured into useful sections: use_case, important_notes, and example. Every sentence earns its place and no unnecessary details are included.

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 a single required parameter with enum values in the schema and an output schema present, the description provides complete guidance for selecting and invoking the tool. It covers purpose, alternatives, edge cases, and a concrete invocation example, leaving no critical gap for an agent.

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 documents the business_unit parameter with an enum of allowed values and a descriptive German label. The description adds a concrete example (business_unit='srf') and clarifies that the parameter selects a SRG SSR Unternehmenseinheit, which helps an agent invoke it correctly despite the low schema description coverage noted in context.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Listet alle Live-Radiosender einer SRG SSR Unternehmenseinheit auf.' It also names the sibling alternatives srgssr_video_get_livestreams for live TV and srgssr_audio_get_shows for show directories, so an agent can clearly distinguish this tool from related ones.

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 use_case section explicitly states when to use the tool, including building radio directories and live-stream selection, and notes that it is a prerequisite for srgssr_epg_get_programs. It also gives exclusions and alternatives: use video livestreams for TV and audio shows for show directories.

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