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

Annotations only cover read safety (readOnlyHint=true), so the description adds real value by disclosing that this is a pointer/locator rather than a content-bearing tool — the NEXT step to get_ai_page implies the actual page content comes from elsewhere. It doesn't describe the return shape, but an output schema exists to cover that.

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 WHAT/NEXT structure is heavily front-loaded and wastes no words, fitting a compact pointer tool. The telegraphic phrasing is efficient, though slightly cryptic without the surrounding context.

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, return values needn't be explained, and the description supplies the destination path plus the follow-up call. For a single-parameter read-only pointer tool this is nearly complete, missing only a note on what the pointer itself contains.

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% and the single locale parameter is already fully documented with enum semantics and prefix behavior in the schema. The description contributes no additional locale guidance, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 the resource it points to ('/ueber-uns (about, owner)') and explicitly distinguishes itself from get_business_identity for NAP facts, so an agent can route between the two. It is terse but specific enough to identify what this tool returns (a pointer, not the page content).

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?

It names the alternative for a specific case ('For NAP facts prefer get_business_identity') and prescribes the follow-up call ('NEXT: get_ai_page(...)'), effectively telling the agent when to use this and what to do next. There is no explicit when-not for the tool itself, but the routing is clear.

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