mop_list_available_wohntopo_years

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does state the return type: 'Dict with available years and description.' However, it does not disclose potential behaviors such as empty results, ordering, or access prerequisites. For a simple list operation, this is adequate but not particularly informative.

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-structured with clear sections (PURPOSE, WHEN TO USE, Returns) and is mostly succinct. There is minor redundancy between the opening sentence and the PURPOSE statement, but overall every section earns its place without excessive prose.

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 that the tool has no parameters and an output schema is present, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage scenarios, and return type. It is a complete description for a simple list operation, with no critical information missing.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema comprehensively covers all parameter aspects. The description accordingly omits parameter details, which is appropriate. Per the rubric, a 0-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4, and there is nothing to add 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 clearly states the tool's action: 'List all available years for residential topography data.' The PURPOSE section reinforces this by saying 'Show which years have Wohntopographie datasets available.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings like mop_get_residential_topography and mop_search_residential_topography, which handle specific data retrieval rather than year enumeration.

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 explicitly lists three relevant scenarios: when the user asks about time periods, wants to know queryable years, or before choosing a year for analysis. This gives clear usage context, but it does not explicitly mention non-use cases or alternative tools, so it falls just short of a 5.

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