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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive safety, so the description need not restate that. It adds genuine behavioral context beyond the annotations: how the seat is determined (register seat, falling back to insolvency-notice seat with region.seat_label noting the notice date), how the region is joined (exact name match only), what 'missing' reports, and the mandatory attribution line. These are real operational traits.

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 content is front-loaded with the returned datasets, but the description is essentially one enormous run-on sentence bundling five data sources, seat logic, join logic, and output-field semantics. It is dense to the point of being hard to scan, so structure and conciseness fall short.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what each returned source contains (table, period, retrieval time, source link, attribution), the seat-resolution edge case, the join caveat, and the missing-list behavior. An agent has enough to call it correctly, though the run-on phrasing leaves some detail tangled.

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 the single node_id parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description echoes the schema ('the graph node id from search_companies hits') without adding syntax or format detail, so 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 names a specific resource (official regional statistics for a German company's seat) and enumerates the concrete data sources: VGR der Länder, Zensus 2022, Regionalatlas, BA labour market, Regionaldatenbank. It is clearly a retrieval/context tool and does not overlap with siblings like company_sector_context. The density makes it slightly hard to parse, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

It states the argument source ('the graph node id from search_companies hits') and the caveat that results are 'for context only, never part of the company's score or status', which implies when to consult it. However, it never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings such as company_sector_context or country_profile, so the when-to-use guidance is only implied.

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