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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds genuinely new context: the 30-day backup retention window and the fact that a repeat call with the same sicherung_id is a no-op. It does not spell out the failure behavior once the backup has expired, which is the remaining gap.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and retention limit, then usage guidance, then the idempotency caveat. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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 one fully-documented parameter, an output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: source of the deletion, time window, and repeat-call behavior.

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 explains that sicherung_id comes from the profil_loeschen response with an example value. The description adds no further parameter detail, 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+resource (restore a deleted profile from backup) and ties it to the producing tool profil_loeschen. It also explicitly names what it is not (profil_anlegen for new profiles), so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening schemas.

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 the triggering condition ('Nutze dies, wenn die Person ein gelöschtes Profil wiederhaben will') and routes the alternative case to profil_anlegen. The 30-day backup window also implicitly states when the tool is no longer applicable.

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