cs_search_correspondent_network

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It does provide behavioral details like 'max_letters_to_analyze ... (pro Richtung)', but it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only, what side effects exist, or any access requirements. This is adequate but not rich.

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 well-organized into PURPOSE, WHEN TO USE, Args, and Returns sections. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses bullet-like formatting for parameters. Each section earns its place without unnecessary fluff.

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?

Despite the tool's complexity (network analysis, 5 parameters, no annotations), the description covers purpose, usage, parameters, and return value. An output schema exists, so return details are not repeated. Minor gaps like date format are not specified, but overall it is largely complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by listing each parameter with a meaningful explanation (e.g., 'person_gnd: GND-ID der fokalen Person', 'start_date: Optional: Start-Datum für Zeitfilter'). It also adds the nuance 'pro Richtung' for max_letters_to_analyze, going beyond the 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 opens with 'Korrespondenz-Netzwerk einer Person analysieren', clearly specifying the verb (analysieren) and resource (correspondence network of a person). The PURPOSE section reinforces this and distinguishes it from sibling search tools like cs_search_correspondences by focusing on network analysis.

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 WHEN TO USE section provides concrete usage scenarios (e.g., 'Mit wem korrespondierte Person X?', preparing network visualizations, identifying key partners). This gives clear context, though it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternative tools.

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