zh_edu_schulkreis_trend

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds behavioral detail beyond these, such as the scope (Sek I), breakdown by Anforderungstyp, and the return format (trend overview with year comparison and overall development). No contradiction with annotations.

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: a clear opening sentence, a detailed explanation, and a straightforward Args/Returns section. It is slightly longer than necessary due to duplicating schema information, but every sentence earns its place and the formatting is clean.

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 trend tool with one parameter object and a string return, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the time range, the breakdown, and the response format. It does not address error cases or data availability, but given the annotations and simplicity, this is acceptable.

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 fully documents all three properties (schulgemeinde, letzte_n_jahre, response_format) with descriptions, constraints, and defaults. The description's Args section mirrors the schema without adding new meaning. Since schema coverage is high, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 shows learner trends for a school district/municipality, with specific detail on Sek I and breakdown by requirement type (Sek A, B, C). This differentiates it from sibling tools like residential trends or matriculation rates, satisfying the verb+resource+scope criterion.

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 clearly indicates the usage context: trend over the last N years for a specific school district. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the context is strong enough for an agent to infer when to use it. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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