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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, closed-world write. The description adds real context beyond that: the feedback lands with a team that reads every entry, and crucially there is no email reply. That 'no reply' expectation is exactly the kind of behavioral detail an agent needs before invoking.

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-loads purpose, then behavior ('keine Antwort per E-Mail'), then routing to alternatives — a logical order with no filler. It is on the longer side for a two-parameter tool, but each clause carries routing or expectation-setting value.

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, an output schema present, and full schema description coverage, the description only needs to add behavioral and routing context — which it does completely. An agent has everything required to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 both parameters (art enum, text with length bounds) are fully documented in the schema. The description only loosely echoes the enum values (Lob, Kritik, Wünsche, Ideen), so it adds little beyond structured data — baseline 3.

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+resource (Feedback/Verbesserungsvorschläge zum Stellen-Radar weitergeben) and enumerates the kinds of content it carries (Lob, Kritik, Wünsche, Ideen). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming an_support_uebergeben, stelle_merken, stelle_ausblenden and stelle_melden.

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 when-to-use condition ('auf Wunsch der Person für Rückmeldungen ohne Antwortwunsch') and an explicit when-not with the correct alternative ('Braucht sie Hilfe oder eine Antwort ... nimm an_support_uebergeben'). Per-job signals are routed to three named siblings, leaving nothing to inference.

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