zurich_strb_search

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) are aligned. The description adds value by disclosing the backend endpoint, search method (ILIKE), and details on return format. It also mentions data availability and license, providing complete behavioral context beyond 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-organized: purpose, technical details, data availability, license, then Args/Returns. It is front-loaded with the main action and every sentence adds value without redundancy. Efficient and clear.

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 presence of an output schema (as indicated in context), the description still provides a useful summary of return fields. It covers everything an agent needs: search functionality, parameter details, output format, data source, and limitations (public resolutions from Feb 2025). Complete and actionable.

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 explains all parameters (query, departement, datum_von, datum_bis, limit, format) with examples, complementing the input schema which already has descriptions. It provides a quick reference for usage. The 0% schema description coverage in context seems inconsistent, but the description adequately covers parameters.

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 the tool's purpose: full-text search of public city council resolutions (STRB) using CKAN Datastore SQL endpoint. It specifies the exact resource (Stadtratsbeschlüsse) and action (Volltextsuche), distinguishing it from siblings like get_beschluesse_by_departement and search_stadtratsbeschluesse.

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 provides context on when to use the tool (full-text search with optional filters) and includes data availability and license. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to sibling tools like search_stadtratsbeschluesse, which might have similar functionality.

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