zurich_strb_detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about the Markdown return format and error cases (not found or before Feb 2025), which helps with behavioral expectations beyond the 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 well-structured with a summary, argument details, and return description. It is concise but covers essential information without unnecessary fluff.

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 output schema exists, the explanation of the Markdown return format and error handling is sufficient. The tool is simple with one parameter, and the description provides adequate completeness for an agent to use it correctly.

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?

Despite the schema description coverage being 0% per context, the description provides the format and an example for the parameter, and adds context about where the number appears. This adds value beyond the schema's pattern and length constraints.

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 returns metadata of a single council decision (Stadtratsbeschluss) by number, listing the specific fields (title, date, department, link). It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_stadtratsbeschluss_detail', which may appear similar, but the purpose is clear.

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 usage when one has a Beschlussnummer and wants details, but it does not provide guidance on when to avoid this tool or suggest alternatives like search or filtering tools among siblings.

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