energy_find_biogas_plants

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing a safe read operation. The description adds the data source ('Quelle: ch.bfe.biogasanlagen') but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as rate limits, pagination, or result ordering. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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 a single primary sentence followed by short, well-structured tags and an example. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no filler or redundancy.

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 simple spatial-search tool with a full output schema and safe-read annotations, the description covers the use case, data source, and an example. It provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without ambiguity.

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 thoroughly documents all three parameters (lat, lon, radius_m) with descriptions and bounds. The tool description adds a concrete example (lat=47.4, lon=8.5, radius_m=25000), which illustrates valid values and usage. This adds value beyond the schema, justifying 4.

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 Biogasanlagen im Umkreis eines Standorts', which identifies a specific verb ('searches'), resource ('biogas plants'), and location scope. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like energy_find_power_plants or energy_find_wind_turbines.

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 tag ('Recherche zu Biomasse-Energie, regionale Kreislaufwirtschaft') gives clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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