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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the data source, the included finding types, the fact that each finding is individually named and dated, and the explicit non-evaluation of natural persons. No contradiction with 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?

Three sentences with no fluff: the action and scope are front-loaded, the relevant categories are enumerated, and the disclaimers are separated at the end. Every sentence contributes.

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 simple one-parameter schema and strong annotations, the description sufficiently covers source, scope, output granularity, and exclusions. It could be slightly more complete by describing empty/no-findings behavior, but for this tool the missing detail is minor.

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%; the only parameter, uid, is documented as 'UID der Firma'. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but none is needed because the schema fully covers the single input.

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 ('fasst zusammen') with a delimited resource ('was im Handelsamtsblatt zu einer Firma publiziert wurde und geschäftlich relevant ist') and lists concrete risk categories. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from a credit-rating tool, so an agent can tell it apart from sibling tools.

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 makes the intended use clear: retrieve business-relevant register findings for a company. It provides explicit exclusions ('KEINE Bonitätsauskunft', 'bewertet KEINE natürlichen Personen'), though it does not name sibling alternatives or spell out precise when-to-use versus when-not-to-use conditions relative to firma_details or bestand_status.

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