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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds what data is returned (address, contact, hours, status), which is useful, but it does not disclose behavior beyond that, such as what happens for invalid IDs or how the optional 'at' timestamp affects the status. Adequate but not rich, given the annotation coverage.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the delivered data and quickly anchors the input to find_nearby. Zero filler; every clause earns its place.

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 simple read-only detail lookup with 100% schema coverage, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the return payload (address, contact, hours, status) and input provenance. It is slightly thin on the role of the required next to id, but the schema already explains it, so nothing critical 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%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters including the find_nearby provenance of the id and the ISO 8601 format of at. The description repeats the id provenance but adds no new meaning beyond the schema, matching the baseline of 3 for high coverage.

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 ('Liefert') and resource (address, contact, opening hours, opening status for a single entry), and ties its input to an ID from find_nearby, which distinguishes it from the sibling search tool. It is clear but does not explicitly contrast it against siblings like atm_fee_hint or sandbox_request_appointment, so it stops one step 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?

The description implies when to use the tool — after find_nearby returns an ID — which gives usable context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, name alternatives, or mention that category is required for invocation. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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