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

Beyond the annotations, the description explains the full post-submission workflow: no appointment, response within one business day, email confirmation link, document and photo upload, address completion, terms acceptance, and deletion after 24 hours without confirmation. These are important behavioral traits for an agent to understand before invoking the tool.

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 long, but the complexity of the tool (22 parameters, document upload, confirmation flow) justifies most of the detail. It is front-loaded with the core action and services, though the final English summary is somewhat redundant.

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 complex mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the key workflow, required user confirmation, document upload, and cleanup behavior. It does not describe what the tool itself returns to the caller, and it does not discuss duplicate or idempotency behavior, leaving minor completeness gaps.

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 schema already defines all 22 parameters. The description still adds useful meaning by tying vehicle fields to the Swiss Fahrzeugausweis (Ziffer 23, 24, 36, 15) and by noting that role, insurer, and claim number are helpful for accident cases. It does not explain every parameter, but it compensates where the workflow context matters.

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 a specific verb and resource: creates a quotation request at Garage Kuhn AG in Thalwil for five named service categories. It also distinguishes the action from appointment booking by saying 'Ohne Termin', which helps separate it from the sibling termin_buchen tool.

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?

It gives clear usage context (accident, paint, break-in, towing, restoration) and a when-not condition: if the vehicle is not drivable or has broken down, call first instead. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as termin_buchen, so it falls short of full alternative routing.

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