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

The description goes beyond the annotations by disclosing the two side effects that matter: it mutates the object and it depends on an external map service (open world), which implies latency and possible failure. It does not address overwrite semantics for existing coordinates or failure behavior, and the blanket "Schreibt in das Objekt" sits slightly at odds with the schema's apply=0 default, which only computes.

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 purpose, side effect, usage trigger and sibling alternative come first in three tight sentences. The trailing "| EN: object, record, entry, property, link, search" keyword block is pure noise for an invoking agent and dilutes the front-loading.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description is adequate: an agent knows what is computed, when to call it, that it writes on demand and that it hits an external service. What it returns in the non-applying case, and what happens if the object lacks a usable address, remain unstated.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented, including the apply and direction semantics. The description restates the address->coordinates mapping and the write-back behavior at a high level but adds no format, precedence, or edge-case detail beyond the schema; 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?

States a concrete verb chain and resource: fetch coordinates for an object (address -> lat/lon), write them into the object, via an external map service. It explicitly marks the boundary against the sibling onto_interface_map_markers for map display, so the agent can separate geocoding from rendering.

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?

"Nutze es nach dem Anlegen eines Objekts mit Adresse, wenn Kartenmarker gebraucht werden" gives a clear trigger condition, and the sibling pointer names where to go for the display side. It does not cover the reverse-geocoding case or say when not to call it (e.g., coordinates already present), so it falls short of a full when/when-not treatment.

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