zh_edu_wohnort_trend

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile with readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context by clarifying the data source (Wohnort, not Schulort) and the output type (Trend-Tabelle), which goes beyond the annotation fields without contradicting them.

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 appropriately sized: a one-sentence summary, a short clarifying statement, a structured Args block, and a Returns line. Every element earns its place, 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?

For a read-only trend tool with robust annotations and an output schema, the description covers the input parameters, the filtering dimensions, the data basis, and the return format. There are no significant missing details that would prevent correct invocation.

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?

Although the context signal reports 0% schema description coverage, the description's Args section enumerates all parameters with clear meanings, defaults, and response_format options. This compensates for the perceived coverage gap, even though the underlying JSON schema itself also contains detailed parameter descriptions.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Zeigt die Entwicklung der Lernendenzahlen nach Wohnort' (shows the development of learner numbers by place of residence). It also explicitly distinguishes the tool from school-location-based alternatives by stating 'Basiert auf dem Wohnort der Lernenden, nicht dem Schulort', which differentiates it from sibling tools like zh_edu_schulkreis_trend.

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 conveys when this tool is applicable: it reports trends by learner residence rather than school location, and it supports filtering by area type and school level. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say 'use this instead of X', but the Wohnort vs. Schulort clarification provides strong contextual guidance.

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