find_offices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful note that results include address and web page, but omits anything about lookup scope or failure behavior for ambiguous queries. It also only names three office types while the schema's enum offers a fourth (Berufsinformationszentren), understating the tool's reach.

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; the verb and resource come first. The trailing 'with address and web page' is slightly clumsy phrasing, but it earns its place by hinting at result content.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and annotations carry the read-only/idempotent profile. For a two-parameter lookup this is nearly sufficient; the only real gap is the absence of any guidance on when this lookup is the right call.

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 ('Postcode, town or office name' and 'Restrict to these office types'). The description's mention of 'an address' loosely mirrors the query param but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Find') and concrete resources (Agentur für Arbeit, Jobcenter, Familienkasse) that are visibly distinct from every sibling tool in the list. What's missing is any explicit acknowledgment of how it differs from lookups like overview or rules; it relies on the resource name to carry differentiation.

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 never says when to reach for this tool rather than overview, rules, or registration_deadlines, nor does it state prerequisites (e.g. a German address/postcode is required). Usage is only implied by the resource name.

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