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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral context beyond them: it warns that results carry no ranking and no reliable differentiation because identities and source data are unverified — important for interpreting output.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the operation and followed by the key caveat. No filler; every clause carries 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The remaining gaps are the unexplained dimensions parameter and the absence of usage routing versus siblings, which leave the definition only minimally viable.

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 0% for both params. The description confirms the street_ids count constraint (2-5) but says nothing about the dimensions parameter (services.supermarkets/pharmacies/bakeries/cafes) or its meaning, leaving that enum undocumented outside the schema.

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 states a clear operation ('Zwei bis fünf historische Straßenkontexte nebeneinander') and scope (2-5 contexts), which distinguishes it from the read-only siblings get_street_context and search_streets. It stops short of stating an explicit comparison verb, but 'nebeneinander' (side by side) conveys the purpose adequately.

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?

No guidance on when to choose this over alternatives such as calling get_street_context repeatedly, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The '2 to 5' bound is implied scope rather than usage instruction.

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