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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it requires a matching email, only outputs status on match, and explicitly excludes personal or building data from the response. This goes beyond the 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 concise: three sentences, each with a clear purpose. The first states what it does, the second gives prerequisites and verification behavior, the third specifies response content. No wasted words.

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 the tool's simplicity (two params, no nested objects, output schema exists), the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, prerequisites, verification, and response scope. It is slightly vague about error behavior when credentials don't match, but that's a minor gap.

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 carries the full burden. It explains both parameters: bestellnummer has a specific format (EA-XXXXXXXX) and email is the one associated with the order. This adds valuable meaning beyond the schema's bare names.

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 that the tool returns the processing status of an order placed via this assistant. It specifies the resource (order) and the action (query status), and distinguishes from siblings like bestellung_aufgeben (create) and energieausweis_info via the 'über diesen Assistenten aufgegebenen' qualifier.

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 description clearly states when to use the tool: when you have the order number and email address of an order placed through this assistant. It also specifies the matching requirement. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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