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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=true, idempotent=true), it concretely explains what gets destroyed ('Abschalten entfernt ihn'), that an existing agent is overwritten with the new frequency, and the delivery constraint that without trial/subscription mail arrives only on Sundays even with 'täglich'. That is exactly the kind of consequence and prerequisite detail annotations cannot convey.

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 effect, then overwrite/removal semantics, then the Sunday-mail constraint, and finally the consent rule and alternative. Dense but each sentence carries information; only the Sunday caveat is slightly redundant with the schema text.

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?

For a 3-parameter mutation tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything an agent needs: purpose, consequences, consent precondition, frequency semantics and the correct sibling for read-only viewing.

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 the schema already documents an, profil_id and haeufigkeit, including the 'täglich nur mit vollem Zugang, sonst sonntags' caveat. The description restates that limitation and otherwise adds 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?

It states a specific verb set (einrichten, ändern, abschalten) on a specific resource (Stellen-Agent eines Profils) and explains the observable effect (user receives matching jobs by email). It also names the sibling treffer_abrufen for merely viewing matches, so an agent can separate this tool from its neighbors.

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 when-to-use and consent requirements: 'Nur aufrufen, wenn der Nutzer es ausdrücklich möchte; vorher Profil und Häufigkeit nennen und bestätigen lassen.' It also gives the alternative ('Zum Ansehen von Treffern stattdessen treffer_abrufen'), covering when-not.

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