get_kindergarten_finance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states that the tool returns yearly totals and specifies the currency (AMD), which clarifies the read-only nature. However, it does not explicitly disclose potential side effects, access constraints, or caveats about data freshness or scope.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core subject, date range, and output format. There is no redundant or filler wording.

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 parameterless read-only tool, the description fully covers what an agent needs to call and interpret the result: the data domain, the years covered, and the returned fields with units. No output schema exists, but the text explicitly describes the return shape.

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 tool has zero parameters, so parameter documentation is unnecessary. The description adds contextual meaning by explaining what the returned data contains, which is sufficient given the empty input schema.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: returning municipal kindergarten financing totals per year over 2019-2025, with a specific output format. It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like list_investment_projects or get_district_profile, none of which cover this exact subject.

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 domain-specific wording implies when the tool should be used: when kindergarten financing totals are needed. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives, exclusions, or conditions under which another sibling tool might be more appropriate.

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