accidents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that the data is an annual aggregate per district from the 'Unfallatlas', which provides useful context beyond annotations but does not contradict them.

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 immediately conveys the core purpose. It is appropriately front-loaded with no wasted words.

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 tool has no output schema, one undocumented parameter, and relies entirely on the description, it fails to explain how to use the slug parameter or what the output format looks like. The description is incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly without additional context.

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 single parameter 'slug' is entirely undocumented in both the schema (no description) and the tool description (0% coverage). The description mentions 'einer Stadt' (a city), implying slug might be a city identifier, but this is not explicit. The description adds no value over the bare 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 states the tool provides road traffic accidents data for a city per district, annual aggregate. It distinguishes itself from siblings like air_quality or demographics by specifying the domain of accidents. However, it lacks a verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', but the noun phrase is still 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other city data tools). No context on prerequisites or typical use cases is provided, making it hard for an agent to decide among siblings.

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