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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the description is not required to restate safety. It adds meaningful behavioral detail: the reminder date is computed four weeks before the next service, at latest one year for the annual service, and the output includes a calendar file with an alarm the day before at 9 AM. It does not describe error handling or edge cases, but the core behavior is well disclosed.

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 main purpose and output details, so an agent can quickly understand the tool. It is somewhat redundant because the final English sentence repeats the core purpose already stated in German, but the structure remains efficient overall.

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 nine parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description does a good job of explaining what is returned: date, title, text, booking link, and calendar file. It also explains the date calculation rule. It does not resolve the complex relationship among modell, plan_id, baureihe, and variante, but the schema descriptions cover those parameters.

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 documents all nine parameters thoroughly, including enums, formats, and constraints. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline score 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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns a service reminder for a Porsche, including concrete outputs such as date, title, text, booking link, and an .ics calendar file. It references the sibling porsche_service_berechnen, but does not clearly explain why an agent should choose this tool over that sibling beyond mentioning reminders and maintenance planning.

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 phrase 'Für Erinnerungen und die Planung von Wartungen' gives an implied usage context, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to porsche_service_berechnen or the other siblings. The comparison to porsche_service_berechnen is ambiguous because it says 'same details' rather than distinguishing the use case.

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