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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds the mechanism (resolves via the usesForm link) and the return value (the form_udid), which the annotations do not cover; there is no output schema, so naming the returned identifier is meaningful.

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 purpose, then the usage condition and the follow-up call, so an agent gets the essentials immediately. The trailing '| EN: form answer, submission, response, prepare, submit' keyword tag is SEO filler rather than information, and the body being German-only slightly raises parsing cost for non-German agents.

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 single-parameter read-only resolver with full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, precondition, exclusion, follow-up, and the returned value. No output schema exists, but the return (form_udid) is named; only the failure case (answer_udid not found / no usesForm link) is left unaddressed.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Antwort-udid (32-hex)'), so the schema already does the work. The description adds only the qualifier 'bekannten' (known) answer_udid, which is marginal beyond the schema baseline.

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+resource: it resolves the form_udid for a known answer_udid via the answer's usesForm link. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from show_form_answer and prepare_form_answer/submit_form_answer by describing the exact gap it fills.

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?

Explicit when-to-use (you have answer_udid but not form_udid), when-not (you already have form_udid from prepare_form_answer/submit_form_answer), and the follow-up call to make afterwards (show_form_answer(form_udid, answer_udid)). This is a complete routing instruction.

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