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

The description discloses response-shape behaviors beyond the annotations: max five lines per category, always includes the total count and the drill-down tool, and explicitly names any category or field omitted due to AI-access restrictions. It also promises never to stay silent about omissions, which is valuable behavior context not present in the annotations or input schema.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the one-call overview and each sentence earning its place: scope, output limits, omission handling, and usage timing. There is no filler or repetition.

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 overview tool, the description is fully complete: it states what is returned, the per-section limit, how omissions are reported, and the recommended call time. No output schema exists, so the return/behavioral details in the description carry the full burden and succeed.

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 zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to add. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and the description does not invent or imply arguments that are not part of the schema.

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 an unambiguous purpose: it answers 'was steht an?' in one call and enumerates the exact categories covered (today's appointments, pending orders, open invoices, undecided offers, unbilled time, low stock). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by positioning itself as the morning overview and pointing to specialist tools for details.

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?

Explicitly says it is the right first call in the morning and that for details the user should then use the specialist tools ('Fachwerkzeuge'). This gives an agent a clear when-to-use rule and routes follow-up calls to alternatives.

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