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

Annotations already declare the safe read profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's value is the additional scope disclosure: the response includes public services, prices and inquiry links, example profiles cannot be inquired directly, and private contact/account data is withheld. That privacy and content-scope context goes beyond the structured fields.

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?

Three sentences, each carrying distinct information (purpose, eligibility caveat, privacy boundary) with the purpose front-loaded. Mostly waste-free, though the example-profile caveat is slightly tangential to a pure read operation.

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 one parameter, no output schema and no return-value documentation, the description steps in to enumerate what a successful read contains (services, prices, inquiry links), which is enough for an agent to know what it gets back. Minor gaps remain around error/not-found behavior.

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 schema supplies only pattern/length constraints, not meaning. The description compensates by specifying that the slug is the canonical profile identifier, which tells the agent what value to supply rather than leaving it to guess.

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 ("Lies") and resource ("öffentliches Profil") plus the lookup key ("kanonischer Profil-Slug"), which separates it from the search- and list-oriented siblings. It is clear what the tool returns, though it never names search_providers to draw the boundary explicitly.

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 through the requirement of a canonical slug and the caveat that example profiles are not directly inquiry-able, which hints at eligibility constraints. However, it gives no explicit "use this instead of search_providers when you already know the slug" routing or when-not-to-use guidance.

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