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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/closed-world, so the burden is lower. The description goes beyond them with genuinely useful context: results are historical record IDs, do not guarantee a unique real street, and catalog links are not verified live. It misses pagination behavior despite a cursor param, which keeps it from a 5.

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 short sentences with no filler; the scope statement is front-loaded before the caveats. It is terse and every sentence carries content, though the clipped style borders on cryptic.

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 the data-quality caveats are a good addition. But for a 4-parameter search tool with 0% schema coverage and a pagination parameter, the definition leaves an agent without enough to call it correctly or page results.

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% across 4 parameters (query, city_id, limit, cursor), and the description adds nothing about them—no format, no meaning of city_id's 12-digit pattern, no cursor semantics. With sub-50% coverage the description was expected to compensate and does not.

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 and resource-scope: 'Textsuche innerhalb einer Gemeinde' (text search within a municipality), which is clear enough to distinguish from verb-different siblings like compare_streets and get_street_context. However, it never names the resource ('Straße') explicitly, relying on the title, and it does not differentiate against search_municipalities, whose scope sounds nearly identical.

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 use this versus the five siblings, no prerequisites, and no note on how the cursor/limit pagination should be driven. The caveats given are data-quality warnings, not usage direction.

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