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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description nonetheless adds substantial behavioral context: permission-dependent fields (Trainerhinweise, zusatz, nachbereitung only if the user may edit), attachment structure, block/parallel semantics, and the critical arithmetic rule that parallel tracks run simultaneously and blocks cost the longest track. Also explains why self-summing is wrong and to use dauer_minuten. Far beyond what annotations provide.

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 with the core return shape in the first sentence, then structured paragraphs on attachments, blocks, parallel groups, and arithmetic. Dense but every paragraph earns its place for a rich read tool. Slightly long, but justified by the domain complexity.

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?

No output schema, so the description carries the full burden of explaining the return value, and it does: day/module/attachment/block/parallel fields, permission-gated fields, and the dauer_minuten fallback. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result correctly.

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 coverage is 100% and the single id parameter is already documented as coming from sessions_suchen. The description reinforces this provenance. With only one parameter, the baseline is high; the description adds no syntax beyond the schema but does not need to.

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?

Specific verb (liefert) and resource (eine Session vollständig), with explicit scope: alle Tage, Module mit Uhrzeit und Dauer, Ziel, Inhalt, Material, parallele Kleingruppen. Clearly distinguished from sibling sessions_suchen (which provides the ID) and from the write tools.

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?

Names where the ID comes from (sessions_suchen) and gives a strong re-read guideline: take this tool again after every change before addressing the next module, because module nummer shifts. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use, but the usage context is clear.

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