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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context beyond this: it must quote the eco statement verbatim, answer in the user's language, and returns a broad set of contract details. No contradictions with annotations.

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 structured with a clear lead sentence, a colon-delimited list of contents, and usage guidance at the end. The keywords list (e.g., 'Tarifdetails', 'AGB') is somewhat redundant for an AI agent but can aid search; it is not harmful. Overall, each sentence earns its place without being overly verbose.

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?

The tool is a read-only lookup with only two parameters, an output schema exists, and annotations cover safety. The description lists all key condition categories the agent will receive, and it specifies the input requirement and language behavior. Nothing critical is missing for selecting and invoking the tool correctly.

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% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nuance beyond the schema: it specifies that `ref` must come from a compare-tariffs result (reinforcing the schema's wording) and clarifies that `language` is used for eco statement/proof texts, which the schema only says 'language of the conversation'. This extra context helps the agent understand the parameter's role.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: "Full conditions for one tariff from a previous compare-tariffs result" and enumerates the exact content (price composition, guarantee, contract terms, eco proof). It differentiates from siblings like compare-tariffs (which compares) and book-contract (which acts) by scoping to a single tariff's detailed conditions.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: "Call when the user asks about a specific tariff's conditions before deciding." It also connects to compare-tariffs by requiring the `ref` from that result, implying a sequencing. It does not explicitly mention when-not-to-use or name alternative tools, so it misses the full 'alternatives' part of the rubric.

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