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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safe read-only nature is covered. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that the tool first determines the responsible carrier and restricts input to German addresses, but it does not describe response shape or caveats. This is modest additional context rather than rich behavioral disclosure.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences state the core action and provide a concrete example question. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 read-only address-to-collection-dates lookup with strong schema coverage and safe annotations, the description, title, and example are sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. It could have explicitly directed users to abfuhrtermine_fuer_traeger when the carrier is already known, but the first-point-of-contact framing covers most guidance needs.

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 description coverage is 100%, and each parameter already has examples, defaults, ranges, and nullability documented. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verbs ("Ermittelt", "liefert") and names the exact resource: the responsible Entsorgungstraeger and its Abfuhrtermine for a German address. It also positions itself as the address-based entry point, distinguishing it from siblings like abfuhrtermine_fuer_traeger and finde_traeger.

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?

"Erster Anlaufpunkt fuer Fragen wie 'Wann wird bei mir die Biotonne geleert?'" gives clear when-to-use guidance for address-based collection date queries. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, so it stops short of a full 5.

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