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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it details returned content (next service timing/mileage, Porsche's wording with page link, following services, Garage Kuhn booking link with vehicle data, reminder with date/text/calendar file) and includes a disclaimer ('Richtwert ohne Gewähr').

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, but it is long, bilingual, and somewhat redundant: the English sentence repeats a subset of the German output details and omits several specifics. Parameter guidance and disclaimer are interleaved, reducing structural clarity for a complex tool.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain return values; it does so in detail, covering next service, maintenance scope, links, and reminder contents. With 100% schema coverage for parameters and annotations covering safety, the remaining gap is minor: it does not clarify how this tool relates to sibling porsche_service_erinnerung or whether it creates a reminder versus merely including reminder data.

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 all nine parameters are already documented with examples, enums, and constraints. The description only restates the alternative car specification modes ('modell', 'baureihe', 'plan_id') without adding syntax, format, or interaction rules beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb ('Berechnet' / 'Calculates') and resource (Porsche service due next), including output scope: next service timing/mileage, tasks in Porsche wording, booking link, reminder. It distinguishes itself from a simple plan lister by describing computed results, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools like porsche_wartungsplaene as alternatives.

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?

Provides parameter input modes (modell, baureihe, plan_id) but no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or explicit comparison to sibling tools such as porsche_wartungsplaene or porsche_service_erinnerung. An agent must infer that this tool is for calculating a service schedule rather than fetching plans or managing reminders.

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