Abfallkalender Deutschland

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'Zeigt' aligns with a safe read operation. The description adds meaningful context beyond the annotations by clarifying that this is a summary/count view of carriers and data sources rather than a detailed list or mutation.

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 starts with the action verb and delivers the essential information without unnecessary detail. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only tool, the description is complete enough: it states what the tool shows and which entities are counted. No output schema exists, but the description's 'wie viele ... erfasst sind' sufficiently conveys the expected aggregate result.

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?

There are no parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter behavior. The schema coverage is trivially 100%, and the no-parameter baseline of 4 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Zeigt') and a concrete resource ('wie viele Entsorgungstraeger und Datenquellen erfasst sind'), clearly indicating an aggregate coverage metric. This is distinct from the sibling tools, which deal with collection dates, finding carriers, and carrier details.

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 the tool is for retrieving coverage counts, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus the sibling tools. An agent can infer the usage context, but there is no direct guidance or exclusion.

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

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safe read-only nature is covered. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that the tool first determines the responsible carrier and restricts input to German addresses, but it does not describe response shape or caveats. This is modest additional context rather than rich behavioral disclosure.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences state the core action and provide a concrete example question. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a read-only address-to-collection-dates lookup with strong schema coverage and safe annotations, the description, title, and example are sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. It could have explicitly directed users to abfuhrtermine_fuer_traeger when the carrier is already known, but the first-point-of-contact framing covers most guidance needs.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and each parameter already has examples, defaults, ranges, and nullability documented. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses specific verbs ("Ermittelt", "liefert") and names the exact resource: the responsible Entsorgungstraeger and its Abfuhrtermine for a German address. It also positions itself as the address-based entry point, distinguishing it from siblings like abfuhrtermine_fuer_traeger and finde_traeger.

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?

"Erster Anlaufpunkt fuer Fragen wie 'Wann wird bei mir die Biotonne geleert?'" gives clear when-to-use guidance for address-based collection date queries. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, so it stops short of a full 5.

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

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety and open-world profile. The description adds that this is a direct, targeted lookup rather than a search, which is useful but does not disclose details like pagination, sorting, or what happens when no dates exist. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action ('Fragt einen Traeger direkt ab') and then adds the key routing context.

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?

The description is adequate for a read-only point query with a well-documented schema, and the title clarifies that the result is about Abfuhrtermine. It could be slightly more complete by stating what is returned or emphasizing the `traeger_id` requirement, but the available context makes correct invocation achievable.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all seven parameters are already documented in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fragt ... ab') and identifies the exact resource ('einen Traeger'), and the title states the resource is Abfuhrtermine for a specific Traeger. This clearly separates it from broader search tools like abfuhrtermine or finde_traeger.

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 gives clear usage context: use this for follow-up questions from `abfuhrtermine` or when the Traeger is already known. It does not explicitly name alternatives for the opposite case (e.g., when the Traeger is not yet fixed), so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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

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

The annotations already indicate read-only behavior, and the description adds the meaningful behavioral detail that no geocoding is performed. This helps the agent understand that the search is a simple name-based match rather than a location-aware lookup.

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 two sentences with no filler, and the primary action and scope are stated first. Every sentence contributes either core functionality or when-to-use guidance.

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?

For a simple read-only search tool with fully documented parameters, the description supplies the necessary purpose, use case, and behavioral nuance. It does not describe the response format, but the tool is straightforward and the annotations cover safety, so the missing detail is not critical.

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 already documents both parameters fully, so the description adds limited new semantic value. It does reinforce that suchbegriff should be a place or operator name, and the 'without geocoding' note clarifies that the parameter will not be interpreted as an address for geocoding, but this is a minor addition.

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 searches for disposal carriers by place or company name, and adds the key distinction that it does not use geocoding. This separates it from the sibling tools like traeger_details and abfuhrtermine, which serve different purposes.

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 explicitly says the tool is useful when address search returns nothing or when the company name is already known. It does not explicitly enumerate when not to use it versus sibling tools, but the stated use cases provide clear practical guidance.

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

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

The description is consistent with the readOnlyHint=true annotation and adds useful behavioral context by specifying exactly what information the agent can expect: expected arguments, example locations, and portal location. This is especially valuable since there is no output schema describing the return payload.

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 one compact, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose and enumerates the three concrete output aspects without filler. Every part of the sentence earns its place.

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?

For a simple, one-parameter, read-only lookup tool, the description conveys what the tool does and what the agent can learn from it. It does not explain domain context around 'Traeger' or explicitly state call sequencing, but the parameter description partially covers the latter.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter, traeger_id, including its type and origin ('ID aus finde_traeger'). The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond that, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Zeigt') and clearly names the resource ('Traeger') and the three types of information returned: expected arguments, example locations, and portal location. It is easily distinguishable from siblings like finde_traeger or abfuhrtermine, though it does not explicitly call out the distinction.

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 the tool is used to inspect details about a specific Traeger, and the parameter schema reinforces this by stating the ID comes from 'finde_traeger', suggesting a follow-up call. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusion conditions.

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