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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'listet' is consistent with that, so there is no contradiction. The description adds the partner address-book scope and optional filtering as context, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, result format, or other side effects beyond what annotations establish.

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 short and front-loads the core action, but it repeats the same content in German and English, creating redundancy. The bilingual duplication may be intentional, but it prevents the description from being maximally concise.

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 list tool, the description covers the resource and search filters, and annotations cover the safety profile. It still leaves limit and reasoning undocumented and provides no guidance on when to choose address_search_company instead, so it is adequate but not fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter meaning. It clarifies that searchQuery can filter by name, city, or client, but it leaves limit and reasoning undocumented, making those parameters ambiguous for an agent.

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 the specific verb 'Listet' (lists) with the resource being 'addresses in the partner address book' and states optional filters by name, city, or client. It clearly conveys the operation, though it does not explicitly contrast it with the sibling address_search_company, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 explains that the tool lists addresses and may optionally be filtered, implying a read/listing scenario. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and does not mention alternative tools such as address_search_company or address_upsert.

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