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

Annotations already declare mutation (readOnlyHint=false), idempotency and non-destructiveness, but the description adds real context beyond that: it 'sets only the marker, sends nothing', that applied positions flow into recommendations like saved ones, and that it is reversible via rueckgaengig=true. This side-effect and reversibility disclosure is exactly the kind of value structured fields don't carry.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then side effects, usage routing and reversibility. Every sentence earns its place, though the 'wie der Koffer im Stellen-Radar' metaphor is decorative rather than informative.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers side effects, routing to alternatives and reversal. It is complete enough for correct invocation; only parameter syntax is left entirely to the schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema, giving a baseline of 3. The description only restates the reversal behavior of rueckgaengig and adds no new syntax or format meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 and resource: 'Markiert eine Stelle im angegebenen Profil als beworben.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming stelle_merken and stelle_notiz_anhaengen, so an agent can route without opening other 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 an explicit trigger ('wenn die Person sagt, dass sie sich beworben hat') and names the alternatives with their selecting conditions ('für bloßes Interesse nimm stelle_merken, für Einzelheiten ... stelle_notiz_anhaengen'). The when-to-use branch is fully specified, not implied.

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