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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: answers are grounded in a hotel-maintained knowledge base, and the agent must not fabricate content when the database has no entry. This goes beyond the structured 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 sentences with no filler: the first states the core function and scope, the second gives a clear usage rule. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 tool is simple, annotations cover safety and idempotency, both parameters are fully described in the schema, and an output schema exists. The description additionally covers the fallback behavior when no knowledge entry exists, making it complete for an agent to use correctly.

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%, with both 'lang' and 'frage' already documented in the input schema. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond that, so the baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Beantwortet') and a clear resource ('Wissensdatenbank'), scopes the tool to factual questions about the house, and lists concrete topics such as breakfast, pets, parking, and cancellation. The instruction 'Immer hier nachsehen' clearly marks it as the dedicated tool for this purpose, distinguishing it from generic siblings like search or hotel_info.

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 explicitly says to always check this tool before answering such questions, which is strong when-to-use guidance. It also adds a negative rule: do not invent answers when nothing is stored. It does not name specific alternatives or exclusion cases, but the context is clear enough.

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