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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). Beyond that, the description adds genuinely useful context an agent can't get elsewhere: which register (or lack of one) applies per trade, and the firm-listing/notary limitation. It does not describe the return shape, keeping it shy of 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?

One dense sentence, front-loaded with the country scope so the agent screens on it immediately. The parenthetical regulatory references are compact rather than wasteful, though the sentence carries a lot of parenthetical load.

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 single-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description supplies the country scope, the covered trades, and the notable limitations. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing, though it could state more explicitly how the result should be used.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already enumerates the five acceptable trade values, so the description's trade list largely repeats it. The § references and register names add marginal interpretive value, but the parameter itself needs no further explanation. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 — telling the reader where to verify a German property professional — and maps it to the exact five trades it covers, each with its regulatory hook (§ 34c GewO, § 34i DIHK, public appointment, state chambers, public office). The leading "GERMANY" plus the trade list cleanly separates it from its check_professional_XX 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?

Gives clear usage context by enumerating which trades it applies to and, importantly, sets exclusions: no German firm is currently listed and notaries are never covered. It stops short of explicitly naming alternative siblings (e.g. check_professional_uk or trouver_expert) or the when-not-to-use case, so it is clear but not fully routing.

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