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

Annotations already establish read-only and idempotent, and the description usefully adds output semantics: prices are provisional net fixed prices, there are no hourly figures, no ranking or schedule commitment, and a binding offer only follows a review. That is real behavioral context beyond the annotations, though it leaves open how a warning confirmation is actually performed, since the schema exposes no confirmation field.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with what is produced, followed by scope disclaimers. Every sentence carries information, though the confirm-warnings sentence is terse enough to be ambiguous.

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 read-only, idempotent estimator with no output schema, the description covers input source, output shape (provisional net fixed price, limited scope), what is explicitly not returned (hours, ranking, dates), and the binding-offer caveat. The remaining gap, the confirmation mechanism, is a schema-side omission rather than a description failure.

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 0% for a single array-of-objects parameter, so the description carries the burden and only partially does so: it says inputs are check rule IDs, but never explains the status field (fail/warn/pass/info/not_tested) or how statuses affect pricing and the warning-confirmation requirement. Nested structure and enum semantics remain undocumented.

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 (ableiten) and a specific output (Leistungspakete mit vorläufigem Netto-Festpreis und begrenztem Umfang) from a specific input (gelieferte Prüfregel-IDs). This clearly separates it from audit_*/analyze_* siblings, though it never names the closest alternative, get_check_catalog, which is where the check IDs come from.

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?

Implies the precondition (you must already have check rule IDs/findings) and states a process rule (Warnungen müssen bestätigt werden), but gives no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and never points to a sibling such as get_check_catalog for obtaining the IDs. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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