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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description goes well beyond that by stating it does not accept updates, that it cannot prove licenses beyond what the site states, and that walkIn is always false with an explicit instruction not to send customers to the office — a behavioral constraint no structured field conveys.

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?

Labeled sections (WHO/RETURNS/USE/DOES NOT/NEXT) front-load the routing information and every clause is keyword-dense rather than padded. The RETURNS enumeration partially duplicates the existing output schema, which is the only mild redundancy.

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?

For a zero-required-parameter read tool with a full output schema and one enum param, the description covers purpose, exclusions, behavioral constraints, and next steps. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 fully documented in the schema (enum, default, prefix semantics), so the description adds no locale-specific detail beyond noting canonicalUrl = /impressum. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter meaning.

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?

Opens with an explicit verb+resource+scope ('Legal/trade identity and NAP for agents and citations') and enumerates the concrete fields returned. Any agent can distinguish it from get_contact, get_legal, or get_about without inspecting a schema.

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 USE clause names concrete triggers (impressum-grade facts, schema.org LocalBusiness fields, 'who owns ikeytz'), the DOES NOT clause excludes a plausible misuse (proving licenses beyond site statements), and the NEXT clause routes to the correct siblings (get_legal(doc=impressum), get_contact, get_geo_office).

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