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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint; the description adds useful behavioral context by explaining the response is delivered in 'focus' and that the result granularity changes with the input code. It does not discuss error/unknown-code behavior, but that is less critical given the read-only, idempotent annotations.

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 dense sentences: the first states the resource and delivered data, the second explains the hierarchical input behavior. There is no filler, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

Given the read-only annotations, optional parameters documented fully in the schema, and the presence of an output schema, the description provides enough context for correct invocation. It explains the one non-obvious behavior (level of detail depending on code) and does not need to restate return fields already defined in the output schema.

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 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents code and year. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining that code may be omitted to get federal states and that a state/district key fetches the underlying level, which clarifies the hierarchical semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('Liefert') and resource ('Krankenhaus') and lists the delivered fields, making the tool's core purpose clear. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling kh_search tool, so it stops short of full sibling 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 gives clear context for how to navigate the directory: no code returns federal states, state/district keys return the next level down. It does not state when to prefer this tool over kh_search or other siblings, so it lacks explicit alternatives/exclusions.

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