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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that the tool returns no firm names, phone numbers, or addresses, instructs the agent to only surface count, distance, type, and werkstatt_finder_url, and explicitly forbids inventing data. It also confirms anonymity and read-only behavior, giving a clear picture of side effects and output limitations.

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 definition is front-loaded with a one-sentence purpose, then organized into clearly headed sections for usage, parameters, and output behavior. Each section earns its place; the apparent length comes from genuinely useful decision routing and disclosure, not filler.

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 complete for a complex claims-domain tool: it covers the legal scenarios, parameter semantics, output format expectations, and the anti-hallucination rule. Since an output schema exists, the absence of full return-shape documentation is not a gap.

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?

With only 25% schema description coverage, the description compensates fully: it explains plz as a 5-digit German postal code, clarifies ort as a city/address alternative, defines radius as a distance in km with min/max/default, and restates response_format options. It also adds the mutual-exclusion rule 'PLZ ODER ort angeben,' which is not encoded in the schema.

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 first sentence states a specific action and resource: 'Findet Claimondo-Partner-Werkstätten im Umkreis einer deutschen Postleitzahl.' It also marks the tool as read-only and anonymous, and the later bullets distinguish it from the Gutachter and Sachverständige sibling tools, so an agent immediately knows what it is for.

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 'WANN DIESES TOOL — und wann NICHT' section gives explicit conditional routing: use it first for self-caused damage, use claimondo_finde_gutachter_termine before it for no-fault damage, and use claimondo_pruefe_anspruch when fault is unclear. It also explains the legal rationale (e.g., § 249 BGB), which helps the agent select the tool with context.

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