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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses the immediate stock deduction side effect, the failure mode for insufficient stock (rejected rather than booked into negative), and the downstream invoicing consequence. All disclosures are consistent with destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: core purpose, side effect and downstream consequence, failure mode, and scope boundary. The primary action is front-loaded in the first sentence with zero filler.

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?

Covers side effects, failure behavior, and scope boundary, with the idempotency protocol fully documented in the schema. The only notable gap is the success response shape — there is no output schema and the description does not say what the caller receives on success.

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%; every parameter has a meaningful description, including an exceptionally detailed two-phase protocol for idempotency_key. The tool description itself adds only marginal parameter context (e.g., stock availability constrains menge), so the baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Bucht Material oder Werkzeug auf einen Auftrag' (books material or tool onto an order), which is immediately distinguishable from pure stock tools and general order tools. The closing 'Legt KEINE Rechnung an' explicitly draws the boundary against invoice creation, so an agent can tell it apart from rechnung_anlegen.

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?

Explains the intended context — consumption is assigned to the order so it can later be carried into an invoice — and explicitly states what it does NOT do ('Legt KEINE Rechnung an'). However, it never names sibling alternatives such as material_buchen or rechnung_anlegen directly, so routing between siblings is implied rather than explicit.

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