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

The description adds crucial context beyond annotations: the agent must not call or send WhatsApp, only show links to the human, and can use submit_inquiry as an alternate lead path. This goes beyond what readOnlyHint and idempotentHint convey. It doesn't explicitly state that the tool returns a flyer, but annotations already declare it as a safe read-only operation.

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 description is front-loaded with the project name and key details, followed by usage guidance and behavioral constraints. It's efficient but includes some redundancy (e.g., repeating 'Konstanz/Allmannsdorf' in the usage trigger). Still, every sentence adds value.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool without an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what the flyer contains, when to use it, behavioral restrictions, and the alternative lead tool. It could be improved by explicitly stating that the tool returns the flyer, but it's largely complete.

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 zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description doesn't discuss parameters because there are none, which is appropriate. It does mention that the flyer includes tel/WhatsApp/email links, which hints at the content delivered.

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 identifies a specific project ('Neubauprojekt Konstanz-Allmannsdorf') with concrete details (5 MFH, 44 Wohnungen, Seesicht), but the verb is implicit – it never states that the tool *returns* or *displays* a flyer. The name 'get_flyer' suggests retrieval, but the description could describe a project rather than an action. A vague connection between purpose and sibling tools leaves some ambiguity.

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?

It explicitly says when to use it ('Nutzen bei Wohnung/Neubau/Konstanz/Allmannsdorf') and warns against waiting for the keyword 'Flyer'. It names an alternative tool ('submit_inquiry') for lead submission, though it doesn't contrast with other siblings like get_listing or search_listings.

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