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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: only published listings are returned, and the exact address is deliberately withheld ('Keine genaue Adresse'), which shapes what the agent should expect from the 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?

One front-loaded sentence listing the returned content, followed by a short privacy caveat. No filler, no repetition of the tool name or annotations.

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 carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so by enumerating the field groups. It covers the privacy limitation as well. The only gap is behavior when a slug is unknown or unpublished (error vs empty result), which is not addressed.

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 sole slug parameter is documented in the schema as coming from search_properties. The description only restates 'per Slug' and adds no format, casing, or origin detail beyond the schema, 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?

The description states a specific verb+resource ('Details eines veröffentlichten Angebots per Slug') and enumerates the returned fields (Beschreibung, Lage, Ausstattung, Energiedaten, Bilder, Exposé-Link). It clearly separates this from the search-style siblings by scoping to a single listing keyed by slug, though it never names search_properties explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied: fetch full details for one listing identified by slug. There is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not, nor a pointer to the sibling that produces the slug (the schema mentions search_properties, not the description). The 'veröffentlichten' qualifier hints that unpublished listings are out of scope but does not spell out the consequence.

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