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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered; the description adds real value by disclosing the returned content (forbidden topics with reasons, allowed questions, rating anchors, interview flow). This matters because no output schema exists to convey the payload.

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?

Front-loaded and dense with useful specifics, but the phrase 'Germany only' is stated twice in the opening sentence, which is pure redundancy in an otherwise tight block. The long enumeration of return contents is justified, the repetition is not.

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 lookup with two optional enum parameters and no output schema, the description covers what the agent gets back and the jurisdictional constraint. The only gap is how the two optional parameters modulate the result.

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 both enums are fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description never mentions form or senioritaet and adds no guidance on how the choice of interview setting or seniority changes the output.

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 concrete resource (a checklist of allowed/forbidden interview questions under the AGG) and enumerates the concrete content it covers: pregnancy, religion, health, age. The 'interview' framing cleanly separates it from siblings such as stellenanzeige_check or mitarbeitergespraech_leitfaden.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('when a founder prepares an interview or asks whether a question is allowed') plus examples of the topics that qualify. The repeated 'Germany only' also functions as a scope exclusion, but no sibling alternative is named for the non-German or non-interview case.

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