zh_edu_maturitaetsquote

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

The description adds meaningful context beyond the annotations by explaining the calculation formula (Anteil der gymnasialen Abschlüsse an der 19-jährigen Wohnbevölkerung) and the return format. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate those. The additional methodology details are valuable.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear opening statement, a brief formula explanation, and a compact Args/Returns section. Every sentence adds value and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 description covers the core functionality, metric definition, parameters, and return type. An output schema handles the detailed response structure, and annotations cover the safety profile. It is complete for a read-only tool, though it could mention the canton scope (ZH) explicitly or behavior for empty results, but these are minor gaps.

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 description's Args section restates the parameters (gemeinde, bezirk, response_format) in a way that closely mirrors the input schema, which already includes descriptions and examples. No new semantic information is added beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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's purpose: 'Zeigt die gymnasiale Maturitätsquote nach Gemeinde, Bezirk und Kanton.' The verb 'Zeigt' is specific and the resource (Maturitätsquote) is distinct from sibling tools which focus on other education metrics like school communities, trends, or profiles.

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 usage is implied by the description's focus on Maturitätsquote and the filtering parameters, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or mention of sibling tools. It provides clear context but no alternatives.

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