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

Annotations already declare a safe read-only, closed-world operation, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real behavior: only activated (freigeschaltete) providers are returned, geo results carry distance_km and are sorted by distance, and the pflegekasse flag is explained in business terms (Entlastungsbetrag, private helpers, Baden-Württemberg).

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?

Short and front-loaded: resource description first, then parameter behavior. Some sentences merge result-shape details with filter semantics, making it slightly dense to parse, but nothing is wasted.

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 helpfully reveals result fields (Durchschnittsbewertung, distance_km, sorting, pflegekasse marker), which is what an agent needs. The gaps are max_results semantics and any note on empty-result behavior.

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 80%, so baseline is 3; the description goes beyond the schema by explaining what q can be (keyword or PLZ prefix), how near and radius_km combine into a radius search, and what pflegekasse/nur_pflegekasse actually mean commercially. Only max_results is left unexplained in both places.

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?

Opening line names the resource precisely (freigeschaltete Anbieter mit Durchschnittsbewertung) and the tool's action is unambiguous as a search. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like provider_reviews or contact_provider, though the names make the split fairly obvious.

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 guidance on the two modes: keyword/PLZ-prefix via q, or radius search via near plus radius_km (1–200), and the result ordering under each mode. It lacks explicit 'use this instead of X' routing to siblings such as contact_provider or provider_reviews.

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