zh_edu_staatsangehoerigkeiten

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it returns a ranking string with ISO2 codes and proportions and notes the default top_n of 10 and null jahr meaning 'latest'. This is useful but does not disclose edge cases such as invalid schulgemeinde names or empty results. Given the annotations, a 3 is appropriate.

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 single lead sentence stating the tool's purpose, followed by compact Args and Returns sections. Every sentence is informative, with no redundant or filler text. The formatting makes it easy to scan quickly.

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?

Given the rich annotations (read-only, idempotent) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides adequate coverage of behavior and parameters. It does not mention how to obtain valid schulgemeinde names or handle potential errors, but for a read-only lookup tool, this is a minor gap. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 explicitly lists and explains all four parameters (schulgemeinde, top_n, jahr, response_format) in an Args section, including defaults and examples. Since the top-level schema only exposes an unannotated 'params' object (coverage 0%), the description fully compensates by detailing every nested parameter, making the semantics crystal clear.

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 uses the specific verb 'Zeigt' (shows) and clearly identifies the resource: 'Staatsangehörigkeitsstruktur der Lernenden einer Schulgemeinde'. It further specifies that it delivers the most frequent nationalities with ISO2 code and share, distinguishing it from sibling trend-focused tools like zh_edu_schulkreis_trend. This makes the purpose unmistakable and unique.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. It does not reference sibling tools such as zh_edu_list_schulgemeinden for valid community names or zh_edu_schulkreis_trend for trends, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context solely from the basic function.

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