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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: accommodations are backend-excluded, fields are tag-derived and never guessed, attribution must be shown once, and there is an explicit anti-fabrication rule (never supplement POIs from training knowledge). No contradiction with 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 description is very long, but it is well-structured with headers, bold labels, and bullet-like sections that front-load the purpose and differentiate siblings. Every sentence adds value, though it could be trimmed slightly without losing critical information. It is more thorough than concise, hence a 4.

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?

Complete for a complex tool: covers typical chain (search_place → this tool → optional get_poi_details), multi-call guidance, anti-fabrication, OSM coverage, and return structure (pois fields, attribution, honesty fallback). An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly, even without an output schema.

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%, but the description adds meaning beyond schema: osm_id is sourced from search_place with an example (1187768), limit defaults and clamping are clarified, types are substring and case-insensitive, include_address default, and the family_only/indoor_only coupling is explained. It also warns that a hotel types filter returns nothing because accommodations are excluded.

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: expands a place OSM ID to the tourism POIs inside it. The first sentence clearly defines the operation and scope, and it explicitly differentiates from nearby, search_place, and stops, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without inspecting schemas.

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?

Provides explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections with concrete query examples in both German and English, and names alternative tools (nearby, get_poi_details, search_place, get_current_weather/get_tide) for each exclusion case. Also gives a typical chaining sequence and a multi-call note.

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