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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses important behavioral limitations: 'Der öffentliche KI-Zugang gibt keine Namen natürlicher Personen und keine Finanzschätzungen aus' and register capital is only returned 'mit belegter Währung'. This helps an agent set accurate expectations about response content.

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 front-loaded with the main action and then provides a compact, meaningful list of delivered data plus a key restriction. There is no filler; every clause 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by itemizing the response content: Stammdaten, Registerkapital, Personen- und Organabdeckung, Revision, Registerbefunde, Registerbezüge, and the latest Verlauf with official sources. It also states what is excluded, making the tool’s behavior sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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 the UID format and the meaning of mit_verlauf are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond mentioning UID-based lookup and the latest history, so the baseline score of 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Liefert die öffentlichen Angaben zu einer Firma anhand der UID' and then enumerates the exact data categories returned. This makes the tool’s purpose clear and distinguishes it from related UID tools like firma_suchen, firma_risiko, and uid_pruefen.

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 intended usage is clear: use this tool when you have a UID and need a company's public register details, history, and related official data. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the UID-based scope provides a clear context.

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