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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds useful context by listing what the plan records contain and tying the data to the service calculator, but discloses nothing about result size, ordering, or completeness.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and the field list, and the optional filter is stated last. It is somewhat padded by a German/English duplication that restates the same fact and repeats "Garage Kuhn", but the size is still reasonable.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates well by enumerating the returned fields. For a single-optional-parameter read tool whose annotations carry the safety profile, this is nearly complete; only sorting/pagination expectations are unaddressed.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter (baureihe) is documented with an enum in the schema. The description only restates that filtering by Baureihe is optional, adding no syntax or semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Listet") plus resource ("Porsche-Wartungspläne") and enumerates the returned fields (Plan-ID, Baureihen, Zeitraum, Herausgeber, Generation, Varianten). It clearly identifies this as a reference-data lookup for the Garage Kuhn service calculator, but does not explicitly distinguish it from siblings like search or porsche_service_berechnen.

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?

Usage is only implied: it surfaces the maintenance plans behind the service calculator, and notes the filter is optional. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-to-prefer-a-sibling (e.g. porsche_service_berechnen) guidance.

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