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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine behavioral context: results do not guarantee availability, and example profiles are not directly inquirable. Return format/pagination is still not disclosed, but this exceeds annotation coverage meaningfully.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose before caveats and category sourcing. No filler, though the 'vonFrauen-Vermittlung' sentence is somewhat tangential to invoking this tool.

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?

For a read-only search with no output schema, the availability caveat and category-source hint are helpful. However, with no return-value description and query/limit semantics unaddressed, an agent lacks enough to call and interpret the tool optimally.

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 only 25% (only city is documented), so the description must compensate. It does add meaningful semantics for category (a branch slug sourced from list_categories), but says nothing about query or limit, leaving half the parameters undocumented in both places.

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: searching public profiles, and ties the behavior to the directory's search and city rules. It also clarifies the category source, distinguishing itself from list_categories. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with get_provider or prepare_inquiry, so full sibling differentiation is missing.

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 useful context: use category slugs from list_categories, and note that example profiles can't be directly inquired. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs. get_provider or prepare_inquiry, so routing to the correct sibling is left to inference.

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