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

The annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds useful context beyond that: it returns an expiring token and cannot apply changes, which is important for understanding the tool's role.

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 two short sentences and front-loads the read-only nature. The German example is small and optional; the rest is efficient.

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 one complex required parameter and the presence of closely related siblings, the description is not complete enough. It never clarifies what an 'assignment' is or how the expiring token should be used, leaving important context missing despite the output schema.

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 the sole top-level parameter, and the description does not explain the assignments array structure, required sessionId, null semantics, or the 20-item limit. The description says only 'destinations', which does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 (preview) but the resource is vague as 'destinations' rather than recording assignments. It also does not differentiate itself from siblings such as review_recording_assignments or move_recordings.

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 example phrase 'meine Auswahl prüfen' hints at a use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus review_recording_assignments or move_recordings. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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