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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly/openWorld/idempotent), the description discloses non-obvious behavior: exact-then-fuzzy fallback, umlaut and 'St.'/'Sankt' normalization, and that ambiguous names return a list rather than a single record. It also states a post-call obligation (cite data source and license), which nothing in the structured fields conveys.

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?

Purpose and behavior are front-loaded in the first two sentences, with examples and the citation instruction following. Slightly busy due to the example list and the license reminder, but every part maps to real behavior, so nothing is wasteful.

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 no output schema, the description correctly fills the gap by naming the return fields and explaining list output for ambiguous names. Minor omissions remain (e.g., limits on the result list, ordering), but the definition is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 single 'text' parameter description already documents name-typo tolerance, the 'Name, Bundesland' form, five-digit GKZ, and the 'Breite, Länge' coordinate format. The description mostly restates these, so the baseline 3 applies with no meaningful added syntax detail.

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 (Sucht) and resource (österreichische Gemeinden) plus the three accepted query modes (Name, GKZ, Koordinate) and the returned fields (GKZ, Bezirk, Bundesland, Mittelpunkt). This is clearly distinct from the weather/water siblings, none of which deal with municipality lookup.

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?

Three example questions ('In welchem Bezirk liegt Steyr?', 'Welche Gemeinden heißen Sankt Johann?', 'Zu welcher Gemeinde gehört 48.04, 14.42?') give concrete context for when to call it. There is no explicit when-not or named alternative, but the domain is unambiguous relative to the sibling set.

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