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

Annotations declare openWorldHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write/external nature is already signaled. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the agent will reply by email to the account address (a visible side effect) and that the call requires explicit user request and confirmation. It does not discuss rate limits or what happens on repeated calls.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and recipient, followed by scope, exclusions and the consent rule; every sentence carries information. The long semicolon-chained middle sentence is dense but not redundant.

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?

With annotations covering the safety profile and an output schema covering the return value, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: what triggers the call, what must not trigger it, the alternative tool, and the required user confirmation.

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 all three parameters (including the enum values for kategorie and the structured-content guidance for anliegen) are already documented in the schema. The description only reinforces the feedback routing, which is already in the kategorie description, so the baseline of 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 concrete verb+resource ('Ein Anliegen an den Support ... übergeben') and names the concrete recipient (Ralf, KI-Support-Agent) plus the response channel (E-Mail an die Kontoadresse). It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like feedback_geben or the profile tools.

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 explicit use cases (Konto, Abo, Zahlung, Lebenslauf, Unterlagen, technische Fehler), explicit exclusions (Profil und Stellen-Agent steuern die anderen Werkzeuge direkt), names the alternative for feedback (feedback_geben) and adds a consent precondition: nur auf Wunsch des Nutzers und nach Bestätigung.

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