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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the actual outcome: a returned link plus the downstream monthly follow in the Heimster account, which tells the agent this is a hand-off to an external valuation flow rather than a data 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?

A single front-loaded sentence opening with the usage trigger, with no filler. The parenthetical German terms are mild clutter but earn their place for a German-market tool matching localized queries.

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 correctly explains what comes back (the valuation link) and what happens next, which is the key missing piece. What remains thin – address format and area units – is the parameter gap already counted elsewhere; overall the definition is adequate for a simple 3-param read tool.

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 only 33%: only 'language' is documented in the schema, while 'address' and 'living_area_m2' carry no explanation anywhere. The description mentions no parameters at all – not required 'address' format, not the unit/meaning of living_area_m2 – so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('follow their property's value over time') and states the concrete output ('returns the link to the free owner valuation'). It does not explicitly contrast itself with near siblings such as property_value_range or area_market_facts, but the OWNER persona and follow-over-time framing make the function clear.

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?

'Use this when an OWNER wants to follow their property's value over time' gives an explicit triggering condition and audience. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. property_value_range for a one-off estimate) or when-not to use it, so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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