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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true), the description discloses that no automatic estimate is generated, Kopp contacts the owner personally, and consent is required, with a privacy policy link. This adds significant behavioral context not present in the 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?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the process, then usage guidelines. It is concise, includes necessary warnings (consent, no automatic estimate), and contains no fluff.

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 explains the workflow, including consent and the outcome (Kopp contacts the owner). It does not specify what the tool returns to the caller (e.g., a confirmation), but since there is no output schema, this is a minor gap. Overall, the behavior is clear.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains all 11 parameters. The description reinforces the consent parameter requirement but does not add new parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action: sending a request for a free market value determination to Kopp Real Estate. It specifies the resource (Kopp Real Estate) and the verb (sendet eine Anfrage), and clarifies the process (no automatic estimate, personal contact), distinguishing it from sibling tools that search offers, prices, or store profiles.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: only call if the user explicitly wants it, and mandates showing details and obtaining consent before transmission. It also states the condition that without consent nothing is transmitted. It does not mention alternatives, but the purpose is distinct enough that an agent can infer when to use it versus siblings.

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