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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses response statuses, that confirmed logins return first name and customer number, that passwords and sessions are never returned, and that polling repeatedly is inappropriate. This is strong behavioral context, though it does not discuss authentication or side effects.

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 compact, front-loads the core purpose, and every sentence adds value: statuses, security guarantee, and usage caveat. No filler or redundancy.

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 single-parameter status-check tool with an output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: what the tool does, possible responses, a security guarantee, and when to call it.

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%, so the single parameter login_handle is already fully documented as 'Das Handle aus start_login'. The description adds no parameter detail, but the schema covers the necessary meaning.

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 and resource: it asks whether the login has been confirmed, and clearly enumerates the possible answers (waiting, confirmed, expired). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like start_login and get_order_status.

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 gives explicit when-to-call guidance: call once when the person says they are done, and do not call in a loop. It does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools, but the context makes the intended use clear.

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