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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds return-content context ('values across its dimensions plus title') and geographic coverage ('Germany-wide and by Land where the table provides it'), but says nothing about rate limits, the shared vs. personal token behavior, or response size/pagination.

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 tight block that front-loads the action, then the sourcing hint, then examples, then coverage. It is efficient, though the parentheticals make it denser than a cleanly split sentence pair would be.

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 read-only, single-required-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what is fetched, where codes come from, and what comes back. Missing only edge-case behavior (invalid code, empty result, token fallback).

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by showing two real code examples and naming the tool that produces valid codes, which helps an agent supply a well-formed table_code rather than guessing.

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 verb (fetch) and resource (Destatis GENESIS statistical table data) and scopes it by table code, with concrete example codes. It distinguishes itself from destatis_search by explicitly saying codes come from that sibling.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to destatis_search for obtaining codes, which is the key prerequisite before calling this tool. It does not state when *not* to use it or what to do on a stale/invalid code, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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