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

Annotations cover the safety profile (non-readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: saved jobs flow into recommendations and an earlier Ausblenden of the same posting is lifted, plus reversibility via rueckgaengig=true. This side effect would not be predictable from the annotations alone.

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 action and its effect before the routing guidance. The single dense paragraph is a little long, but every clause (effect, trigger, three alternatives, reversibility) carries information and none is filler.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. Given a 4-parameter mutation tool, the description covers trigger, alternatives, side effects and reversibility — everything an agent needs to call it correctly in context.

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%, so all four parameters are already documented by the schema, including quelle, stelle_id sourcing and the profiling scope of profil_id. The description only restates the rueckgaengig=true reversal switch, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 and resource ('Merkt eine Stelle') and immediately explains the effect: saved jobs feed the recommendation engine and a prior hide is lifted. An agent can distinguish this from stelle_beworben, stelle_ausblenden and stelle_notiz_anhaengen without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit trigger condition ('Nutze dies, wenn die Person eine Stelle interessant findet') plus three named alternatives each paired with the condition that selects it (applied → stelle_beworben, unsuitable → stelle_ausblenden, own note → stelle_notiz_anhaengen). Nothing is left to inference.

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