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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds substantive context beyond that: exact-before-fuzzy fallback, umlaut and St./Sankt normalization, list output for ambiguous names, and the CC BY 4.0 source/license footer on every response.

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, behavior, examples, and licensing note are ordered logically and front-loaded, with no filler sentences. The licensing note is slightly tangential but legitimately describes response content.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description enumerates the returned fields and the license footer, and clarifies ambiguous-name handling. Nothing needed to invoke or interpret the tool correctly is missing.

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 100% and the single 'text' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the 'Name, Bundesland', GKZ, and coordinate formats. The description correctly mirrors those accepted forms but adds little the schema does not already state, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb (sucht/findet), a specific resource (österreichische Gemeinden), the accepted lookup keys, and the returned fields (GKZ, Bezirk, Bundesland, Mittelpunkt). This is unambiguous and clearly distinguishable from the weather/flood 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?

Concrete example questions ('In welchem Bezirk liegt Steyr?', 'Zu welcher Gemeinde gehört 48.04, 14.42?') make the intended use obvious, and the exact-then-fuzzy behavior is stated. It lacks an explicit when-not or a named alternative, but the sibling set covers entirely different domains so no routing conflict exists.

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