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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description's added value is the 'published' qualifier, telling the agent only published locations/media/slugs are returned, which is real behavioral context beyond annotations. It stops short of saying what happens for an unpublished or unknown locationId, which is the remaining gap.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and followed by identifier provenance and a sibling disclaimer. Every clause carries information an agent needs; nothing is padded.

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 an output schema present the return shape needn't be explained, and annotations cover the safety contract, so the description only needs purpose, identifier source, and scope. Those are all present; the only omission is the effect of the locale parameter and error behavior for unpublished IDs.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning; it does this well for locationId by naming its source (locations.search) and length-bounded string type. However, the locale parameter (enum de/en, default de) is never mentioned, so the agent gets no explanation that it controls the language of the returned content.

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?

States a specific verb and a precisely enumerated resource set: published building and neighborhood information, media, and apartment slugs. It also implicitly delimits scope against siblings by noting where pricing and rental details live (rentals.get) and where the identifier comes from (locations.search).

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?

Gives the prerequisite for calling it ('using locationId from locations.search') and an explicit routing alternative for the adjacent need ('Published rental details and pricing remain available through rentals.get'). An agent can decide between locations.get, locations.search, and rentals.get without opening another schema.

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