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

With readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, annotations already cover the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: results are aggregated rather than raw records, and monetary amounts are net costs in euro-cents, which matters for interpreting the returned data.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses a short, useful second sentence for the unit clarification. The bilingual DE/EN repetition is intentional in this schema family, but it is the only slight redundancy; otherwise the text is appropriately sized.

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 read-only analytics tool with six optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers all returned metric categories and the critical net-cents unit. Defaults and ranges are handled by the schema. The main gap is that the 'reasoning' parameter is left unexplained in both the description and 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 high at 83%, so the schema already documents most parameter meaning. The description adds some business context for metric values like 'Kosten pro Mandant zur Weiterberechnung' and 'Ausgaben gegen die gesetzten Limits', but it does not clarify the undocumented 'reasoning' parameter or add syntax-level detail.

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?

The description opens with the specific verb 'Liefert' and the resource 'aggregierten Kennzahlen des Partnerkontos', then enumerates the concrete metric groups returned. It is clear and not a tautology, but it never contrasts itself with sibling tools, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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?

The description makes it implicitly clear that the tool is for partner-account aggregated analytics, which helps an agent select it for KPI requests. However, it does not state explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions, nor does it name alternative tools such as letter_list or order_status.

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