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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful scoping detail that the 8-digit AGS is not officially validated here and that results are disambiguated by state, but says nothing about pagination behavior despite a cursor parameter.

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?

Three tight sentences, all front-loaded with the core action first and the caveats after. Nothing is padded, though the terseness leaves little room for the missing pagination and disambiguation mechanics.

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 described, and annotations cover the safety profile. The input semantics are reasonably complete, but the absence of any pagination or result-limiting guidance for a tool that exposes limit and cursor leaves a small gap.

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%, so the description must carry the load. It explains the query parameter well (name or historical 12-digit key, rejecting the 8-digit AGS), but the limit and cursor parameters are left entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb (suchen) and resource (Gemeinde) and explicitly names the lookup key types it accepts (Name oder historischer 12-stelliger Verwaltungsschlüssel). It also draws a clear boundary against the official 8-digit AGS, which distinguishes it from anything a caller might confuse it with among the street-oriented siblings.

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?

Provides useful input constraints (name or historical 12-digit key, not the official 8-digit AGS) and notes that same-named municipalities are differentiated by Bundesland. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over siblings like callejear_search_streets or callejear_get_coverage, so the routing guidance is only implied.

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