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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further by enumerating the three returned figures (net volume, order quantity incl. waste, estimated mass) — genuinely valuable since there is no output schema — but it omits the density assumption behind the mass estimate and the rounding behavior.

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 tight sentences: what it computes, what it accounts for, and exactly what comes back. Front-loaded and free of padding, with the output contract placed last where it is most useful.

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 pure calculation tool with no output schema, all five parameters fully documented and no required inputs, the description supplies the missing return-value contract. Only the density assumption for the tonnage estimate and whether defaults are sensible for a typical slab are left unstated.

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%: every parameter has a title, unit, range and default, and the region enum is fully explained. The description's restatement of 'Länge, Breite und Dicke' and the Verschnittzuschlag adds no syntax or semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource (Betonmenge in m³ berechnen) plus the concrete element types it covers (Platten, Bodenplatten, Fundamente) and the exact inputs. The tool is unmistakable in intent, though with only opaque bot_NNN siblings the description can't differentiate it from any alternative.

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 implied by the scope ('für Platten, Bodenplatten und Fundamente'), giving the agent enough to know it fits slab/foundation volume estimation. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no mention of related tools, and no note that all parameters are optional with defaults.

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