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

Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent hints, so the description need not repeat safety. It adds the default ordering (due soonest first) and the returned fields, which is useful but not extensive. There is no mention of pagination or limits beyond the 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?

The description is concise: one sentence stating the purpose, one for default behavior, and one for a typical use case. It front-loads the core action and avoids superfluous text.

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?

Given the rich annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive) and full schema coverage, the description provides sufficient context. It states the output fields and a practical use case, making it complete for a search tool without needing to explain return formats.

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 schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the description adds no extra parameter semantics. The mention of output fields is helpful but not about parameters. Baseline score of 3 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 clearly states the tool lists maintenance contracts with specific fields (customer, system, rhythm, next due date), distinguishing it from sibling search tools like order or invoice searches. It also mentions default behavior for no arguments, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 concrete use case ("welche Wartungen stehen im nächsten Monat an?") and explains default behavior, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like wartungsvertrag_ansehen or other search tools. Still, the context is clear enough for appropriate selection.

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