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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states the side effect (queuing a fax) and a key prerequisite (payment), which is helpful. However, it does not explain error handling, return behavior, or reversibility, leaving moderate gaps.

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 a single, concise sentence in German. It is front-loaded with the action and condition, and every word contributes to the meaning. No unnecessary details or repetition.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential action, the payment prerequisite, and the input source. It lacks information about return values or error states, but given the tool's simplicity, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it 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?

The schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter jobId, and the tool description repeats exactly the same information as the schema property description. No additional meaning is added beyond what the schema already conveys, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action: 'Fax in die Warteschlange geben' (put fax into the queue), with the specific condition 'Nach erfolgter Zahlung' (after payment). It also identifies the required input source (job_id from fax_create_checkout), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like fax_create_checkout and fax_status.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: the tool is to be used after payment, and it requires a job_id from fax_create_checkout, implying a sequence with that sibling tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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