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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive, so the description only needs to add context beyond that. It explains that the tool helps keep the status card fresh and enables the handover card to detect browser return, which is useful behavioral context. It does not describe return values or exact update mechanics, but the safety profile is already covered by annotations.

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 scope and action, and the purpose is clearly stated. The German and English versions are identical in content, which adds slight redundancy, but the overall length is still reasonable and well-structured for an agent.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool, the description covers scope and purpose well. However, there is no output schema and no explicit description of what the returned setup state contains or how the agent should use it. This leaves a notable gap for an agent deciding what to do after invoking the tool.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty with 100% coverage, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('liest'/'reads') and resource: the current setup state for the FrankKi cards in the chat. It also clarifies that this is not a general-purpose status tool by explicitly limiting it to those cards. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling status tools.

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 gives clear context: use it only for FrankKi cards in the chat, and use it to keep the status card fresh or let the handover card notice the human's return. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the 'Nur fuer'/'only' phrase provides a meaningful exclusion.

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