get_workplace

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

With no annotations, the description's only behavioral signal is 'Read', which conveys non-mutating intent. It says nothing about what happens if the cfarNr does not exist, whether an error or empty result is returned, or any access constraints, leaving the full disclosure burden largely unmet.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the terseness leaves little room for the context an agent would need to handle edge cases.

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?

Without annotations or an output schema, the description should carry more weight. For a simple keyed lookup it is minimally adequate, but it omits not-found behavior and the effect of the 'full' parameter, both of which an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description restates cfarNr's role but does not mention the optional 'full' flag that controls return verbosity, adding no meaning beyond the structured fields.

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: 'Read one entry from the register by its cfarNr.' This clearly distinguishes a single-record fetch from list-style siblings like search_workplaces and count_workplaces, though it never names them 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?

The phrase 'by its cfarNr' implies you must already have an identifier, which implicitly separates it from search_workplaces. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no stated fallback when the identifier is unknown, and no named alternative.

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