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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that rates are 'verified against each municipal Satzung' and that the response includes official source and Stand, adding useful behavioral context about data provenance and freshness. It does not cover edge cases like city-not-found behavior, but the disclosed behavior is substantive.

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 description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then lists the specific data points returned. Every clause adds value, with no filler or redundant content.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 params, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: what is returned, the data source, and verification status. It does not describe response format or error handling, but it provides enough context for an agent to understand the tool's scope and output content.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by linking 'annual rate for one or more dogs' to the 'dogs' parameter and 'listed-dog surcharge' to the 'listed' parameter, reinforcing the schema's descriptions with real-world context. This goes beyond simple repetition.

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 uses a specific verb ('Look up') with a clear resource ('German dog tax for a city') and enumerates the specific outputs (annual rate, listed-dog surcharge, pricing model, rank, source, Stand). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like hundesteuer_by_state and hundesteuer_ranking by focusing on city-level lookup.

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?

The description implies usage for city-specific dog tax inquiries and differentiates from state-level or ranking tools via 'for a city', but it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusions. It provides clear context without direct when-not guidance.

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