search_stadtratsbeschluesse

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

Annotations already convey readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive traits. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond stating it behaves identically to the replacement tool, which does not contradict 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 a single sentence, but it is a deprecation notice rather than a functional description. It is concise but fails to inform about the tool's purpose or usage.

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's complexity (multiple parameters, output schema exists), the description is insufficient. It lacks information on what the tool returns or how to invoke it effectively, despite the existence of an output schema.

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 does not describe any parameters. Despite the input schema having detailed parameter descriptions, the tool's own description provides no parameter semantics, relying entirely on schema, which context signals indicate 0% coverage from the description.

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 only states it is deprecated and an alias for `zurich_strb_search`, but does not explain what the tool does (e.g., search Stadtratsbeschlüsse). The purpose is unclear without knowledge of the replacement tool.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. It instructs to use the new tool but gives no context on when or why to use this alias versus alternatives.

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