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

The annotations already indicate read-only behavior, and the description adds the meaningful behavioral detail that no geocoding is performed. This helps the agent understand that the search is a simple name-based match rather than a location-aware lookup.

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 two sentences with no filler, and the primary action and scope are stated first. Every sentence contributes either core functionality or when-to-use guidance.

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 simple read-only search tool with fully documented parameters, the description supplies the necessary purpose, use case, and behavioral nuance. It does not describe the response format, but the tool is straightforward and the annotations cover safety, so the missing detail is not critical.

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?

The input schema already documents both parameters fully, so the description adds limited new semantic value. It does reinforce that suchbegriff should be a place or operator name, and the 'without geocoding' note clarifies that the parameter will not be interpreted as an address for geocoding, but this is a minor addition.

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 clearly states the tool searches for disposal carriers by place or company name, and adds the key distinction that it does not use geocoding. This separates it from the sibling tools like traeger_details and abfuhrtermine, which serve different purposes.

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 explicitly says the tool is useful when address search returns nothing or when the company name is already known. It does not explicitly enumerate when not to use it versus sibling tools, but the stated use cases provide clear practical guidance.

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