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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the read-only safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context by explaining what happens when no time period is provided (shows next upcoming appointments) and which fields appear in the results, going beyond the 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?

Two concise, front-loaded sentences: the first states the primary purpose and output fields; the second explains the default behavior without a time period. No redundant or filler content.

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?

The description is sufficient for a read-only list tool with a fully documented schema and annotations. It explains the core action, returned fields, and the no-period fallback. It does not mention pagination or max limits, but those are already in the schema, so the description is complete enough for safe invocation.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, and each parameter is documented (e.g., 'bis' = latest date, 'von' = earliest date, 'anzahl' = max count). The description adds the concept of a date range and the no-period default, but mostly relies on the schema to explain individual parameters.

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 uses the specific verb 'Listet' (lists) and resource 'Aufträge' (orders), clearly indicating that this tool searches within a date range. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'auftrag_ansehen' (view a single order) and 'angebote_suchen' (search quotes) by focusing on listing orders and by naming the returned fields.

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 clearly implies use cases: searching orders over a period, and falling back to upcoming dates when no period is given. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the context is clear enough to guide selection among sibling tools.

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