mop_list_adjutanten_by_monarch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses error behavior ('Raises: ToolError if monarch is invalid or query fails') and the internal notion of analyzing journal entries ('total_entries: Number of journal entries analyzed'). However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe any side effects, though the 'List' verb and return structure imply a safe read operation.

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 longer than typical but well-structured with clear headers (PURPOSE, WHEN TO USE, WHEN NOT TO USE, Args, Returns, Raises). The PURPOSE section somewhat repeats the first sentence, but every other section earns its place by adding necessary selection guidance, parameter details, and error semantics. The use of consistent formatting aids readability.

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's modest complexity (one parameter, no annotations, no schema descriptions), the description is exceptionally complete. It documents valid parameter values, expected return fields (monarch, total_entries, adjutants list with subfields), error conditions, and explicitly differentiates from sibling tools. The output schema's existence does not undercut the value added by the description's explanatory detail.

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 only defines 'monarch' as a string with 0% description coverage. The description compensates fully by enumerating all valid values: 'Friedrich_Wilhelm_IV, Wilhelm_I, Wilhelm_II, Friedrich_III' and warning that invalid monarchs will raise a ToolError. This transforms an otherwise opaque string parameter into a self-documented, constrained input.

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 a specific verb+resource+scope: 'List all adjutants who served under a specific monarch.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly directing users to 'search_register()' for biographical data and to 'search_adjutanten_journals()' for journal content, preventing confusion with similar tools.

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 provides a dedicated 'WHEN TO USE' section with concrete example user queries (e.g., 'Who served as adjutant under Wilhelm I?') and a 'WHEN NOT TO USE' section that names specific alternative tools. This is explicit guidance for tool selection, far beyond the minimum required.

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