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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, and an output schema exists, so behavior is largely covered by structured fields. The description adds only content-level context (locale /leistungen#anchor URL shape and sample service names) and says nothing about ordering, size, or pagination of the returned list.

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?

Three short sentences in a front-loaded WHAT / USE / EXCEPTION structure; the scoping and alternatives are stated before any elaboration, and no sentence is redundant.

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?

Given the read-only annotations, full schema coverage on the single optional parameter, an existing output schema, and an explicit routing rule to three sibling tools, an agent has everything required to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 locale enum is documented in depth (prefix rules, default, non-effect on prices/phone numbers, disambiguation from maps locale). The description's mention of 'locale ... URLs' adds nothing beyond that, 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 a specific verb+resource ('Core service list from SITE.services') and illustrates the payload with concrete entries (Türöffnung, Notdienst, Sicherheitstechnik, Schlosswechsel). It explicitly distinguishes itself from list_auswahl/get_auswahl_item (situations) and get_prices (euro amounts), so an agent can route without opening any 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?

States the intended role ('USE as a menu') and gives explicit when-not conditions with named alternatives: use list_auswahl / get_auswahl_item for situations like zugefallen or Schlüssel weg, and get_prices for euro amounts. This is exactly the routing guidance an agent needs among 45 siblings.

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