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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent, adding real context beyond them: it clarifies this is a mobile-only operation with no walk-in, that the office address is not a customer counter, and that no booking or live quoting happens here. It stops short of describing pagination or caching behavior, but for a read-only card tool the coverage is strong.

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 WHO/WHAT, RETURNS, USE, DOES NOT, NEXT structure is front-loaded and scannable, with each clause carrying distinct information. It is dense and slightly terse in places, but 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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still enumerates the key returned fields and envelope shape, so an agent knows what to expect. Combined with the usage triggers, exclusions, and sibling routing, nothing needed to select or call this tool 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 coverage is 100% and the single locale parameter is fully documented in the schema, including enum values and URL-prefix behavior. The description adds nothing parameter-specific (canonicalUrl=home hints at return shape rather than the locale arg), so this sits at the baseline where the schema does the work.

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 resource ('public brand card' for a named mobile locksmith) with concrete scope (Landkreis Ludwigsburg, Germany) and lists exactly what it returns (tradeName, gewerbeName, priceRange, envelope). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the adjacent tools for identity, contact, and pricing.

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 gives explicit 'USE when' triggers (who is ikeytz, is there a shop, opening-hours positioning) and explicit 'DOES NOT' exclusions (no booking, no live quotes, no geocoding, no form submission), plus a NEXT list routing to get_business_identity, get_contact, get_prices, and get_ort_datetime.

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