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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying what is intentionally excluded from the view (Bankverbindung, Steuernummern, Nummernkreise), giving the agent a clearer picture of the tool's limitations. No contradiction with 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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a practical use case and a concise list of exclusions. Every sentence adds meaningful information with no redundancy or fluff.

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 settings viewer, the description is complete: it explains what data is shown, what is intentionally omitted, and when it is useful. No output schema exists, but for this simple tool the description sufficiently conveys expected behavior.

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 accepts zero parameters, and the input schema is empty. The description adds no parameter-specific details, as none are needed. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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 clearly states the tool shows company data and settings for invoices and offers, naming specific elements (Zahlungsziel, Steuersatz, Stundensatz, Textbausteine). It also explicitly lists what is NOT shown (bank details, tax numbers, number ranges), which distinguishes it from related tools like einstellungen_aendern.

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 provides a clear use case: 'Nützlich, um zu erklären, warum eine Rechnung aussieht, wie sie aussieht.' This implies when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion cases. The sibling tool einstellungen_aendern is not referenced, but the name and description make the view-vs-edit distinction obvious.

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