zh_edu_sek1_profil

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by describing the output as 'Profil mit Anzahl und Anteil pro Anforderungstyp' and stating the default year behavior ('leer = aktuellstes'). It also clarifies the response_format options, exceeding the annotation baseline.

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 tightly structured with a one-sentence purpose, a category list, Args, and Returns sections. There is no filler or redundant explanation; every line contributes.

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 profile tool with one nested input object, the description covers purpose, categories, parameters, default behavior, response_format, and return value. It does not discuss edge cases like unknown Schulgemeinden, but the annotated read-only nature and simple output make this sufficient.

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 Args section restates and clarifies all parameters, adding concrete examples ('Zürich-Letzi') and the default-year semantics ('leer = aktuellstes') beyond what the schema's property names alone provide. Given the low schema coverage signal, the description compensates effectively for each parameter including response_format.

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 'Zeigt das Sek-I-Profil einer Schulgemeinde (Anforderungstypen A/B/C)', giving a specific verb, resource, and scope. It also enumerates the exact breakdown categories, clearly distinguishing this read-only profile tool from trend, overview, and Maturitätsquote siblings.

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 implies use when you need a Sek-I profile broken down by Anforderungstyp for a Schulgemeinde, but it never explicitly states when not to use it or mentions alternatives among the sibling tools. The purpose is clear, yet selection guidance is only implicit.

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