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

Goes well beyond annotations: a human reads every message, the sender gets a receipt rather than an approval, the operator gets a notice, a repeat within a day returns the first id with duplicate=true, and there is a five-per-minute per-caller limit. It also discloses public/no-key access and a 503 not_available state pending migration 0065, which is exactly the operational context annotations cannot express. Nothing contradicts readOnlyHint=false or idempotentHint=true.

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?

All content is substantive, but it is delivered as one dense run-on paragraph starting with an opaque internal reference (docs/texty/formulare.md 2–4) that means nothing to an agent. The most decision-relevant facts (register_shop alternative, duplicate behavior, rate limit) are buried mid-block rather than front-loaded.

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 14-parameter, three-variant submission tool with no output schema, the description covers what happens after the call (confirmation email, human review, duplicate response), access requirements, rate limits and a known service-unavailable state. An agent has everything needed to call it and set expectations for the caller.

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%, and the schema already marks conditional requirements per kind (e.g. 'required for a partner'), so the description's per-kind field breakdown largely restates structured data. It adds some synthesis by grouping fields into the three submission shapes, but gives no new format or validation detail beyond what the schema carries.

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 action (sending a cooperation inquiry to Fordeal) and enumerates the three addressee types it covers (partner, media, creator). It explicitly carves itself out from register_shop, so an agent can separate it from the shop-registration path 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?

Gives an explicit exclusion with the alternative named: 'A shop that wants to be compared uses register_shop instead.' It also defines the selecting condition for each kind. It does not mention send_contact_message, the nearest sibling for general messages, leaving that boundary to inference.

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