indicators

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about the data being district-level and annual. No contradictions with annotations, and it enhances understanding of the tool's behavior.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded with key information (source, scope, granularity). Every word contributes meaning with no waste.

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 single parameter, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description defines the tool's purpose and scope adequately but lacks details on return format (e.g., what indicators are included, how years are structured). It is sufficient but not fully comprehensive.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage for the 'slug' parameter. The tool description does not explain what 'slug' represents (likely a city identifier). With only one parameter, the description should clarify its meaning, but it does not.

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 socioeconomic indicators from INKAR/BBSR for a city at district level per year. It is specific with verb 'Indikatoren einer Stadt' (indicators of a city) and distinct from sibling tools that cover other domains like accidents or air quality.

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 implies usage for socioeconomic data but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like demographics or unemployment. No exclusions or when-not guidance are provided.

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