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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds no behavior beyond that: no auth requirements, rate limits, error behavior for an unknown slug, or caching notes. Since an output schema exists, the enumerated return fields are context rather than required disclosure, so this lands at baseline.

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?

Content is front-loaded and every clause is substantive, but the same information is given twice, once in German and once in English, roughly doubling length without adding information. For an agent this is redundant token cost rather than clarity, though neither version contains 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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and the annotations carry the safety profile. The remaining gap is the undocumented `lang` parameter and the absence of any note on what happens for an invalid or unknown slug. Otherwise complete for a single-resource lookup tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does well for `slug`, naming its concrete sources (events_heute.ort_slug or orte_suchen), which is real meaning beyond the schema's bare string type. The second parameter `lang` (default "de") is never mentioned — the bilingual text hints at language support but never says what `lang` changes or which values are accepted.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Steckbrief eines Ortes in Hamburg per slug" / "Profile of a family place in Hamburg by slug") and enumerates the exact payload: description, address, opening hours, today's events, FAQ, nearby places, website. An agent can distinguish this detail-by-slug tool from the search sibling orte_suchen without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent where the required slug comes from ("aus events_heute.ort_slug oder orte_suchen"), which routes correctly from the two sibling tools that produce slugs. It stops short of an explicit exclusion (e.g. "use orte_suchen if you only have a name or district"), so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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