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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it explains the review pipeline ('Das Stellen-Radar prüft die Meldung, erst eine bestätigte ändert die Stelle'), the immediate per-account side effect for two of the four types, and that the action cannot be undone. Destructive/irreversible nature is confirmed and elaborated rather than merely restated.

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, then side effects, then the alternative and the irreversibility warning — each sentence carries a distinct decision-relevant fact. Slightly dense in the middle clause, but nothing is 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, a 100%-covered schema and an output schema present, the description supplies the remaining decision-critical context: what happens after filing, when the listing disappears, and that the write is final. Nothing an agent needs before calling is missing.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds cross-cutting semantics the schema only states per-field: the requirement that a report carry a real 'Beleg' and that a mere guess is insufficient, which governs beleg, art and the conditional merkmal/vorschlag/partner fields together.

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 ('Meldet einen Datenfehler an einer Stelle') and enumerates the four reportable defect types, so the agent knows exactly what class of action this is. It also names the confusable sibling stelle_ausblenden, which sharpens the boundary.

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 precondition ('nur mit klarem Beleg, nicht aus Vermutung') and an explicit routing rule to an alternative ('Passt die Stelle der Person nur nicht, nimm stelle_ausblenden'). Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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