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

Beyond the readOnly/non-destructive annotations, it discloses that contact data is omitted and that ok=false signals a vanished entry. That is useful behavioral context for a read operation; auth/rate-limit details are absent but annotations already lower the burden.

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?

A single tight sentence with no filler, front-loading the resource and privacy note before the example. Every element earns its place.

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 simple read-only lookup with annotations and no output schema, it covers visibility, contact-data omission, and the not-found response. Adequate for correct invocation, with minor gaps around the full success response.

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% for the single required id parameter. The description partially compensates by linking it to the #ding=12 fragment in shared links, but does not state id format, valid range, or behavior for invalid ids.

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 action (fetch a single visible entry) and resource (ding), plus privacy scope 'ohne Kontaktdaten' and a shared-link example. It implicitly distinguishes itself from plural search siblings via 'ein einzelner', though it does not name an alternative tool.

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 a concrete usage context, e.g. from a shared link ending in #ding=12, which implies when to call it. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this versus dinge_suchen or other lookup tools, nor state prerequisites.

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