zh_edu_list_schulgemeinden

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context about the data source and alphabetical ordering of results, which goes beyond the annotations. No contradiction exists.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and uses a compact Args/Returns structure. Every sentence provides value without unnecessary 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?

For a simple read-only list tool, the description fully covers the operation, parameters, output format, and use case. The annotations and parameter details are sufficient; no additional behavioral notes are required.

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?

Although the schema has descriptions, the tool description explicitly lists both parameters (suchbegriff and response_format) with examples, ensuring clarity. Since the computed schema coverage is 0%, the description fully compensates for the lack of top-level parameter explanation.

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 lists all Schulgemeinden and Schulkreise in the Canton of Zurich, using a specific verb and resource. It also mentions the data source (Sekundarstufe-I data), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like trend or overview.

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 explicitly notes the tool is useful as an entry point to find valid names for other tools, providing clear usage context. However, it does not mention when to avoid this tool or name alternatives, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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