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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered structurally. The description usefully adds that one input name can yield multiple places, which the agent cannot infer from annotations. It says nothing about no-match behavior, matching fuzziness, or result ordering, so the addition is real but modest.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the resolution behavior and the cardinality caveat directly after. Nothing is padded, but the final sentence is unclear and does not earn its place as written.

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 one-parameter, read-only, non-destructive tool with full schema coverage and an existing output schema absence that is unproblematic for a simple resolver, the description covers the essentials including the one-to-many result risk. Missing are failure behavior and what the returned 'stabile Kennungen' are used for downstream.

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 single 'suche' parameter is already fully documented as a place name or postal code, so the baseline is 3. The description restates both accepted input types but adds no format or matching detail, and the sentence about 'Kennung und Ortstext zusammen' is ambiguous enough that it could mislead an agent into thinking an identifier may be passed.

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 ('Löst ... auf' / resolves) on a specific resource (Ortsnamen oder Postleitzahlen) and states the outcome (verfügbare Orte und stabile Kennungen), so an agent knows this is a name/postal-code resolution tool rather than a general lookup. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the generic 'search' or 'suche_arztstellen' siblings, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling is named as an alternative. The closing sentence 'Die Suche nimmt Kennung und Ortstext zusammen' further muddies rather than clarifies when the tool applies, since the schema accepts a single text string.

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