Two tools with minimal definitions. Both have basic input schemas with typed parameters and descriptions, but tool descriptions are extremely brief (under 50 chars). No output schemas documented. No error handling guidance. No parameter constraints (enums, ranges). Naming follows verb_noun pattern but lacks clarity on what validation is performed. No evidence of idempotency, pagination, or composition patterns. Schema quality is present but sparse.

• Expand tool descriptions to 100-200 chars. Example: 'Validates a German address against postal service records. Returns {valid: boolean, normalized_address?: string, error?: string}. Use before submitting address forms. Accepts street, postal code (5 digits), and city name.'
• Document output schemas explicitly. Specify all return fields, types, and when they are present (e.g., 'error field only present if valid=false').
• Add parameter constraints: plz should declare format (5 digits, regex ^\d{5}$), ort should declare max length (50 chars), anschrift should declare format (street address, max 100 chars).
• Add error recovery guidance: 'If validation fails, check postal code format (5 digits) and city spelling. Call search_german_cities() if city name is uncertain.'
• Declare tool annotations in schema: add 'readOnlyHint: true' and 'idempotentHint: true' to both tools to signal safety to agents.