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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond annotations by disclosing data-quality caveats: no guarantee of official completeness, current publication, or indexing.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the scope statement leads and the limitation caveat follows. Well front-loaded, though the purpose sentence is somewhat abstract.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety, so the main gaps are the undocumented city_id parameter and the absence of when-to-use routing. Adequate but with clear omissions for a coverage-inspection tool.

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 single parameter city_id is documented at 0% coverage and is never mentioned in the description, so the agent cannot learn what it does or its 12-digit format from the text. The phrase 'aller 16 Bundesländer' even implies nationwide scope, leaving the optional scoping parameter unexplained.

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 what the tool returns: coverage figures and limits ('Zahlen und Grenzen') for the historical catalog spanning all 16 German states, which is a specific resource distinct from the search/compare siblings. However, it never explicitly names or contrasts itself with those sibling tools, so differentiation relies on the name/title.

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 guidance on when to call this tool versus the siblings (search_streets, search_municipalities, compare_streets, get_street_context), nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer that this is a metadata/coverage inspection tool.

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