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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description still earns credit by adding return-shape behavior (at most 15 providers, price range may be absent 'wenn vorhanden', net per tonne) and reaffirming that nothing is changed or sent. It does not cover failure behavior when no provider matches.

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 dense sentence front-loads the action and scope, followed by a short negation that earns its place as a safety signal. Slightly run-on, but no 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does describe the key outputs (provider list, bounded count, optional price range). It leaves the response structure and the empty-result case unstated, but an agent has enough to call and interpret it.

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% with both parameters documented and the enum fully annotated, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates that PLZ is German and that Abfallart drives the price range, which the schema already says, so no meaningful value is added.

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 concrete verb (findet) plus the resource (regionale Containerdienste) and pins the scope to a PLZ with a bounded result ('bis zu 15'). It implicitly contrasts with the send-oriented sibling via 'verschickt nichts', but never names anfrage-senden or formular-link, so sibling differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.

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?

Usage is implied — 'an die eine Anfrage ... gehen würde' suggests this is the lookup step that precedes anfrage-senden — but the description never states when to choose this over the alternatives or what prerequisites apply. Adequate context, no explicit routing.

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