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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the result is probabilistic ('vermutlich', 'möglicherweise') and explicitly 'Nur Indikation, keine Garantie, keine Finanzberatung', which is important for trust and invocation.

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?

Two short sentences front-load the action and outcome, then add the necessary caveat. There is no redundant repetition of the schema or annotations.

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?

The description is sufficient for a read-only hint tool: purpose, matching logic, and confidence level are all present. It does not detail output shape, but it implies the output by saying branches will be marked one way or the other; no output schema exists to require more.

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?

Input schema coverage is 86%, so descriptions of lat/lon/plz/city/radius already exist. The tool description adds semantic value by clarifying that 'your_bank_or_network' is matched against 'gleiches Automatennetz wie die eigene Bank', which explains how the result is determined.

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 states a specific verb ('Markiert') and resource ('Bankfilialen in der Nähe') and clearly defines the two possible classification outcomes. It does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling tool, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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?

No guidance is given about when to choose this tool over find_nearby or the other siblings; the caveat about no guarantee is a disclaimer, not a use case. An agent can infer the use from the name, but the description itself does not state when it is appropriate.

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