get_stadtratsbeschluss_detail

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

The description adds that it behaves identically to `zurich_strb_detail`, which is useful but does not go beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) that already indicate a safe, idempotent read operation.

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 extremely concise (two sentences) and front-loads the critical deprecation information, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 tool is deprecated and the description redirects to the new tool, it is contextually complete for its primary intention. The output schema exists but is not described; however, for a deprecated tool, that 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no parameter information. While the input schema itself describes the single parameter with format and examples, the description does not compensate for the low coverage, which is expected for a deprecated alias but still leaves the agent with minimal guidance.

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 it is a deprecated alias for `zurich_strb_detail`, which tells the agent the tool's purpose (retrieve a single city council decision) indirectly through the sibling name. The title also adds clarity.

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 explicitly tells the agent not to use this tool and to use `zurich_strb_detail` instead, providing clear when-not-to-use and an alternative.

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