meineba_postfach_recipients

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and open-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond them: it explains the domain mapping ('Agentur = AA, Jobcenter = JC') and the 'bezug' topics concept, which tells the agent what the payload contains and why openWorldHint matters here.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and followed immediately by the prerequisite. No filler or restatement of the name.

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 spelled out, and the description covers what the agent needs: the recipient/topic structure and the prerequisite on meineba_postfach_send. The only gap is that the exact field names of the returned recipient objects are left entirely to the 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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate at the parameter level.

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?

States a specific verb (offices the user can write to) and resource (Postfach recipients) plus the topics each accepts, so the returned data shape is clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling Postfach tools like meineba_postfach_read, but the noun 'recipients' is distinct enough not to be confused.

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?

'Needed before meineba_postfach_send' explicitly names the dependent sibling and the ordering condition, which is the key routing signal. There are no exclusions or alternative paths given, but for a zero-argument lookup tool that is a minor omission.

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