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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/destructiveHint=false), it discloses non-obvious behavior: accommodations are excluded server-side even when filtered for, empty results must be reported as such rather than invented, per-POI optional fields are tag-backed or absent (never guessed), and an ODbL attribution object appears once per non-empty response. This is genuinely useful context an agent could not derive from 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?

Front-loaded with purpose before the routing apparatus, and the bold section headers make the long text navigable. It is nevertheless verbose, with repetitive capitalized emphasis (WELCHE/WELCHER/WELCHER) and some restatement of the when/when-not split, which costs it the top score.

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 6-parameter, no-output-schema tool this covers everything an agent needs: required vs optional args with defaults and clamps, the exclusion rule, error/empty-state handling, result field shape, attribution obligation, and OSM coverage caveats. Nothing material is left dangling.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it notes the hotel-type example in the schema yields nothing here (backend accommodation exclusion), states the osm_id provenance (osmRel ID from search_place, osmNode fallback), and flags that indoor_only is only meaningful together with family_only. It stops short of extending meaning for every parameter, so not a 5.

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 city/region OSM ID into the tourism POIs contained in it, naming the OSM Knowledge Graph as the source. It explicitly distinguishes itself from three siblings (nearby, search_place, resolve_location) with a labelled 'Tool-Semantik-Abgrenzung' section, so an agent can position it without opening any schema.

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 dedicated 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' blocks with concrete German and English trigger phrases ('was kann ich in <REGION> unternehmen'), plus routing rules to nearby for radius queries, get_poi_details for one POI, and search_tourism for hotels. The Typical chain (search_place → this tool → get_poi_details) and multi-call guidance remove all inference.

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