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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and explicitly discloses 'Reine Datenauskunft' — a pure data query with no valuation and no legal/construction advice. It also documents regional variation in returned data (Berlin vs. Brandenburg for monument and flood categories). It does not cover failure modes or return structure, but the read-only disclaimer addresses the most critical trait for this lookup tool.

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?

The description is logically ordered: purpose, content areas, input mode, then disclaimer, with every clause carrying substantive domain or regional information. The opening sentence is dense because of the necessary Berlin/Brandenburg parentheticals, but no filler or redundant restatement is present.

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 high-complexity multi-domain lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description is nearly complete: it specifies input formats, geographic/PLZ constraints, per-region data availability, and disclaimers. The main gaps are the response structure and behavior on invalid addresses, which would normally be covered by an output schema.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3: lat, lon, and adresse already have meaningful descriptions including the same example address. The description reinforces the either-or semantics (address OR lat/lon) and the PLZ requirement, but adds only marginal meaning beyond the existing parameter descriptions.

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 clearly defines the tool as a property profile (Grundstuecks-Steckbrief) for an address or point in Berlin/Brandenburg and enumerates its four data areas: official standard land value, development plan, monument protection, and flood risk. It is specific about scope and contents but lacks an explicit verb and does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling bodenrichtwert_abfragen.

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?

Provides clear invocation guidance: input is either a postal address with required PLZ or lat/lon coordinates, with the geographic scope restricted to Berlin/Brandenburg. It also sets boundaries with 'Reine Datenauskunft, keine Wertermittlung, keine Rechts- oder Bauberatung', though it never explicitly tells the agent when to prefer the sibling bodenrichtwert_abfragen instead.

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