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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the result cap (max 30 places) and the shape of each hit (hours, age, price, address, website), which is genuinely useful context. It does not explain what happens when more than 30 match or how ranking/truncation works.

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 with the purpose and the filter requirement before the result-shape sentences, which is good structure. However, the German and English versions are near-verbatim duplicates, roughly doubling length without adding information.

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?

An output schema exists and the description still summarizes what each result contains, so an agent knows what it gets back plus the 30-item ceiling. With seven parameters, only lang lacks any explanation, which is a minor but real omission for a bilingual app.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it largely does: it glosses suche as name or keyword, thema with concrete examples ('regen' = indoors, 'draussen', 'kostenlos', 'baby'), and covers stadtteil, bezirk, alter and kategorie. The lang parameter is never mentioned, leaving one documented gap.

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 ('Ausflugsorte fuer Familien in Hamburg suchen') and enumerates the entity types covered (museums, theatres, indoor play, farms, pools, libraries), which makes its scope immediately distinguishable from the sibling events_heute. It also points to ort_info(slug) for per-place detail, drawing a clean boundary.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition ('Mindestens ein Filter: suche, stadtteil ODER bezirk, alter, kategorie, thema') that the schema itself does not enforce, and routes detail/today-status lookups to ort_info. It does not say how this tool differs from events_heute, so the sibling routing is only partial.

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