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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious impact context beyond the annotations: deletion only revokes admission and already-registered accounts remain, which clarifies the blast radius. It stops short of stating auth requirements or confirmation behavior.

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 action, then impact, then routing, in three tight sentences. The trailing '| EN: allowlist, permission, whitelist, code' keyword block is redundant padding for an agent reader, costing it the top mark.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description covers action, side effects, and the alternative. Only minor gaps remain (permission prerequisites, error/return behavior).

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 the schema itself notes the id comes from list_code_allowlist. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies when structured data carries the full parameter burden.

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 specific verb and resource ('Einen Eintrag aus der Allowlist eines Codes entfernen') and immediately differentiates from the sibling upload_code_allowlist by scope (single entry vs. bulk list replacement). An agent can distinguish this from add_code_allowlist_entry and list_code_allowlist 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?

Gives an explicit use case ('Nutze es, um einzelne Adressen zu sperren') and names the alternative for the contrasting case ('Bulk-Ersetzung der ganzen Liste: upload_code_allowlist'), so the routing decision is fully specified.

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