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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds genuinely new behavior: only the *latest* report is returned, results are grouped per supply zone, and each record carries status enumerations, legal basis, source hash and a ready citation string.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the resource and scope before listing returned fields. The field list is long but earns its place because there is no output schema to carry it; minor cost is the parenthetical source/hash aside interrupting the enumeration.

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 no output schema, the description correctly spends its space on the shape of the returned evidence objects, and both parameters are covered by the schema. What is missing is routing guidance against the sibling tools, which matters for a tool this easy to confuse with compare_cities or verify_claim.

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 city (slug/name/postcode) and the optional substance key are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the hint that a city can span multiple supply zones; it says nothing about how the substance filter narrows the returned value set, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 retrieval: all values from the latest test report for a place, broken out per supply zone, and enumerates the returned evidence fields. The resource is clearly distinct from siblings like get_legal_limits, but the description never names a sibling or contrasts the scope, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as compare_cities or verify_claim, which an agent could plausibly confuse with fetch-by-city. Use is only implied by the phrase 'eines Ortes' and the optional substance parameter.

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