zh_edu_overview

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent hints, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context: the output can be markdown or json, the year filter defaults to the latest available year, and the data comes from BISTA. No contradictions detected; it provides enough additional behavioral detail for a simple overview tool.

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 well-structured with clear sections for purpose, data source, args, and returns. It is front-loaded with the core action and remains concise. Slight redundancy exists (e.g., 'Übersicht' repeated), but every sentence adds useful information and the overall length is appropriate.

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 read-only overview tool with nested parameters and an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, data source, scope, parameters, and return format. It does not discuss error handling or edge cases, but given the tool's simplicity and the presence of annotations, this is adequate. The description is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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 lists all three parameters with types and explanations in the Args section, which is helpful. However, this largely mirrors the schema's own descriptions (e.g., 'jahr' meaning specific year or latest, 'stufe' as a filter). The context signal indicates 0% schema description coverage, but the schema already provides detailed descriptions, so the description adds limited new meaning beyond what an agent would find in the schema.

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 provides a canton-wide overview of all learners by level, type, and gender ('Gibt eine kantonsweite Übersicht aller Lernenden nach Stufe, Typ und Geschlecht'). It also specifies the data source and covered levels, distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on specific aspects like school communities or trends.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when a broad, canton-wide overview is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions, but the scope is well-defined through the data source and levels. The sibling tool names suggest distinct purposes, but no direct comparison is made.

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