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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by describing what is returned (rent level plus per-household-size maximums) and warning that real benefit depends on income — an important misuse guard. No rate limits or error behavior, but the bar is lower given 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 core definition is one dense, front-loaded sentence followed by a short caveat, with no filler. The bilingual repetition roughly doubles length, though it is defensible for a German-domain term.

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 must convey returns, and it does so reasonably (levels I–VII and monthly maximum rent by household size). For a simple two-parameter lookup with full annotation coverage this is close to complete, missing only exact return shape detail.

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% and both parameters are documented there, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that amounts are keyed by household size but adds no format, slug, or default guidance beyond the schema.

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 names a specific resource (Wohngeld-Mietstufe I–VII for a German place) and the concrete output (monthly maximum rent amounts per § 12 WoGG by household size). It is clearly distinct from a general cost or tax tool, but it never names or differentiates itself from siblings like search_places or get_city_costs.

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 implied as a direct lookup keyed by place, and the caveat that actual Wohngeld also depends on income hints at when this result is and is not sufficient. However, no explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternative tools are stated, leaving routing to inference.

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