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

Annotations already declare write/non-idempotent/non-destructive/open-world, so the description's added value is the operational context: the code governs which access rights the redeemer receives, it must be shared rather than retained, and the invitation is bidirectional. It does not restate auth requirements (those live in the schema) but adds meaningful behavioral framing beyond the annotations.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by usage, alternatives, and workflow context in a compact block with no redundancy. Trailing lines are short directives rather than filler.

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 7-parameter write tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, alternatives, and key behavior; the implicit return of a code is suggested by 'den Code weitergeben'. It stops short of describing the response shape or auth needs, but the schema carries those.

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%, so every parameter (label, can_read, can_write, can_manage_scope, max_uses, expires_days, scope_id) is already documented in the schema, including the can_manage_scope=1 prerequisite. The description only gestures at the access-rights concept, so baseline 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 first sentence states a specific verb (anlegen) and resource (Einladungscode) and explains the effect: new members self-register with it. It explicitly distinguishes itself from list_invite_codes (manage) and revoke_invite_code (invalidate), so an agent can route correctly without opening a schema.

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 when to use it ('Anwerben von Mitgliedern/Subunternehmern') and names the two sibling alternatives with their conditions — list_invite_codes for management and revoke_invite_code for invalidation. The 'pass the code on, don't store it here' instruction is a concrete usage directive.

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