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

Annotations already declare the operation read-only and non-destructive, and the description aligns with that by using 'Sucht' and 'liefert' rather than mutation verbs. It adds useful context about the directory scope and the authority PO box, but it does not disclose behavior for no matches, multiple matches, or malformed queries.

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-loaded with the core purpose, and the bilingual German/English pair makes it broadly readable. The English translation duplicates the German sentence exactly, adding length without new information, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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?

With no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description is the only source of behavioral and semantic context. It covers the return value in general terms but leaves the country/reasoning parameters undefined and gives no guidance on result ambiguity or edge cases, so an agent cannot fully predict the tool's behavior.

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 has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the tool description must clarify parameters. It clarifies that the search targets company/authority names and makes query semantics inferable, but it does not explain the optional country parameter or the reasoning parameter at all.

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 action and resource: searching companies and public authorities in a directory and returning the matching mailing address, including authority PO boxes. This clearly differentiates the tool from sibling address tools like address_validate (validation) and address_list (listing).

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 should be used when an agent needs a directory lookup for a company or authority mailing address. However, it does not state when to prefer an alternative, such as address_validate for validation or address_list for browsing, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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