lokal

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It describes the return data structure (address, products, etc.) and mentions a vCard link functionality, which adds useful context. However, it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, error handling, or performance characteristics.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently communicates purpose and return values. Every element (verb, resource, specific data fields) earns its place with zero wasted words.

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 single-parameter read operation with no output schema, the description provides good coverage of what information will be returned. It could be more complete by mentioning the response format or error cases, but it adequately conveys the tool's purpose and output scope.

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 schema already documents the single 'agentId' parameter as a UUID. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, but the baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 states the verb ('Get') and resource ('specific Lokal producer'), specifying the exact information returned (address, products, opening hours, certifications, vCard link). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on detailed information for a specific producer rather than discovery, search, or statistics.

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 description implies usage context by specifying 'specific Lokal producer,' suggesting this tool should be used when the user already has a producer ID. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives like 'lokal_search' for finding producers without an ID.

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