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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: authentication is mandatory, a login link may be returned instead of data, and the auth is a demonstration of an approval step with no confidentiality implications. It doesn't mention pagination or failure modes for an invalid token.

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 metric list before the auth detail, which is the right order. The trailing English parenthetical partly duplicates the German text, costing some space without adding new information.

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 single-optional-param, read-only stats tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, metrics, and the full auth path, which is more than adequate. Return-shape explanation isn't needed given the output schema.

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 0%, so the description has to carry the `token` parameter, and it does: it explains where a token comes from (`login` tool, demo credentials) and that a login-link flow is an alternative. It doesn't state that the parameter is optional/defaults to null, which the schema carries implicitly.

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 and resource ('Gibt Betriebszahlen ... aus') and enumerates exactly which metrics: word count and reading time per page, sections, entries, and count of searchable text passages. That is enough to distinguish it from siblings like list_pages or get_page, which return content rather than aggregates.

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?

Explicitly names the prerequisite (anmeldung) and routes the agent to the alternative 'token' source from the `login` tool or the demo credentials URL, plus a login-link path. It doesn't say when to prefer this over list_pages/get_page when an agent just wants page content, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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