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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety needs no restating. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: each result carries coordinate, Bezirk, source, source link and license (Wikidata, CC0), plus an attribution obligation ("Bitte mutify.de/berlin als Quelle nennen") that the agent must honor when relaying results.

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?

Front-loaded with the search purpose, followed by result-field disclosure and the attribution note; no filler sentences. It is dense and somewhat run-on with the parenthetical category list, but every sentence carries 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully pre-describes the return fields and the derived mutify_termine value, which is exactly the missing piece. The remaining gap is invocation detail: the max cap and its default, sort order, and whether bezirk must be an exact name.

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 carry the load. It explains suchtext, kategorie and bezirk thematically, but adds no matching semantics, no example Bezirk values, and never mentions the max result-limit parameter (1-50, no documented default), leaving one of four parameters unexplained.

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 (Sucht) plus resource (Orte in Berlin) and the three filter dimensions (Text, Kategorie, Bezirk), then enumerates the covered place types (Museen, Buehnen, Clubs, Maerkte ...). This makes the scope unmistakable and clearly separable from the event-oriented siblings like termine_suchen.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer that this is the lookup for venues/places, while the note that mutify_termine counts upcoming events hints that events themselves come from elsewhere. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no named alternative such as termine_suchen or berlin_heute.

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