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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real context: the exact field scope read and the boundary that the Lebenslauf-Text is excluded. It repeats 'Nur lesen', which is redundant with the annotations, keeping it from a 5.

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 the verb and the primary scope, followed by usage and alternatives. The long comma-separated field enumeration is dense but every item is informative; slightly list-heavy for a description.

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 need not be explained. Between the purpose, the alternative routing, and the read-only scope, an agent has everything needed 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 the single profil_id parameter is already documented in the schema as coming from profile_auflisten. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, 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 (liest/reads) and resource (Suchfelder eines eigenen Profils) and then enumerates the exact fields returned, so an agent knows precisely what comes back. It also explicitly differentiates itself from profile_auflisten and aenderung_durchrechnen by name.

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 when-to-use conditions ('bevor eine Änderung besprochen wird', 'wenn die Person wissen will, wonach ihr Profil sucht') and names the two alternatives with the conditions that select them (profile_auflisten for the full list, aenderung_durchrechnen for measuring a change).

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