Qualitätskennzahlen

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

The annotations already declare a safe, idempotent, read-only, closed-world operation, so the description carries a lighter burden. It adds useful content by naming the four computed metrics, but says nothing about aggregation scope (what period is covered, what happens when no Niederlassung is supplied) or cost.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the metric list is compactly expressed. Nothing wasteful, though the space saved is not redirected toward the missing default-scope information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the annotations cover the safety profile. For a zero-required-parameter tool the definition is close to sufficient; the only real gap is the meaning of the default (no Niederlassung) case.

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 coverage is 0%, so the single parameter is undocumented apart from its enum values in the schema. "je Niederlassung" hints that the parameter scopes the aggregation, but the description never states that omitting it (default null) covers all branches — the most important semantic an agent needs here.

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 names a specific verb ("Berechnet") and resource ("Kennzahlen zu Reklamationen je Niederlassung") and enumerates the metrics produced. It is clearly distinguishable in intent from listing siblings like reklamationen_auflisten or reklamation_details, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the aggregate-KPI tool rather than the case-listing tool. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over reklamationen_auflisten, nor any exclusion or prerequisite.

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