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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'Zeigt' aligns with a safe read operation. The description adds meaningful context beyond the annotations by clarifying that this is a summary/count view of carriers and data sources rather than a detailed list or mutation.

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 concise sentence that starts with the action verb and delivers the essential information without unnecessary detail. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool, the description is complete enough: it states what the tool shows and which entities are counted. No output schema exists, but the description's 'wie viele ... erfasst sind' sufficiently conveys the expected aggregate result.

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?

There are no parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter behavior. The schema coverage is trivially 100%, and the no-parameter baseline of 4 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Zeigt') and a concrete resource ('wie viele Entsorgungstraeger und Datenquellen erfasst sind'), clearly indicating an aggregate coverage metric. This is distinct from the sibling tools, which deal with collection dates, finding carriers, and carrier details.

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 the tool is for retrieving coverage counts, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus the sibling tools. An agent can infer the usage context, but there is no direct guidance or exclusion.

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