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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully discloses the return content (Kürzel, Website, Vorlagen count) that no output schema provides, though it says nothing about ordering, pagination, or freshness of the data.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: what is listed, what the key is for, and which sibling covers the other scope. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return shape and does so by listing the fields. Combined with the routing hint to a sibling, an agent has everything needed to call and use the result.

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?

The tool takes no parameters, so the schema imposes nothing to explain, which sets the baseline at 4. The description adds value by explaining what the returned `kommune` key is used for, even though that is an output rather than an input concern.

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 and resource ('Listet die Körperschaften auf transparent.ruhr') and enumerates the returned fields (Kürzel, Website, Zahl der Vorlagen). It also distinguishes scope from `drucksachen_suchen` (Landes-/Bundesparlamente), so an agent can tell the two apart without opening a schema.

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 `drucksachen_suchen` for state and federal parliaments, which is a real exclusion rule. It also signals that the returned `kommune` key is the input other tools need, implying this is the entry point, though it never states outright that it should be called first.

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