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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is largely covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: Germany-only legal scope and the input constraint 'takes only dates, numbers and choices, never names.' It does not describe the shape or depth of the returned workflow, leaving that to the output schema.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with jurisdiction and purpose, then the situation list and the usage trigger. Dense but every clause carries routing value; the long enumeration of German terms is justified because those are the schema enum values an agent must map to.

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 17-parameter tool with a full output schema, the description covers jurisdiction, use case, input nature (dates/numbers/choices, no PII) and the domain of each workflow. The only gap is that it doesn't hint at what the returned workflow contains (steps, norms, deadlines), but the output schema is present to carry that.

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% and the per-parameter descriptions are unusually rich (each anchor-date meaning is spelled out per art value, enums are annotated). The description's only added semantic is the no-names/PII constraint, so the baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 gives a specific verb-and-resource framing ('a complete HR workflow (Ablauf) with dates, roles and legal norms for a situation') and enumerates the concrete situations it covers (first hire, sickness, pregnancy, dismissal, payroll). This clearly separates it from narrow siblings like kuendigungsfrist_rechnen or mutterschutz, though it never names an alternative tool explicitly.

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?

It states a clear trigger condition: 'Use it when a founder describes a situation such as a first hire, a sick employee, a pregnancy or a planned dismissal,' and scopes jurisdiction to Germany only. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative for narrower questions, which keeps it below a 5.

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