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

Annotations already establish the safe read-only, idempotent profile, yet the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the exact return shape (values, subforms, files[]), explains that empty/missing subforms means no line items were stored, and notes that line items and file-to-field mappings arrive inline with no extra call. That is exactly the behavioral payload the agent needs and cannot get from 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 and return shape are front-loaded, and the sentences about subforms/files each carry non-obvious structural information. It is dense rather than padded, though the restatement of ID provenance duplicates what the schema already says.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining return values, and it does: values map, subform row shape with a concrete PflegeBesuch example, files[] with form_field, and the meaning of absent subforms. Nothing an agent needs to interpret the response is missing.

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 both parameters are already documented, including their source tools. The description largely repeats those sources and only adds the minor nuance that resolve_form_answer applies when just answer_udid is known, so the 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 description opens with a specific verb+resource ('Eine gespeicherte Formular-Antwort ANSEHEN') and states exactly what comes back (stored values as JSON). It distinguishes itself from the schema-reading sibling show_formdef and from the write-path tools submit_form_answer/prepare_form_answer by framing this as the post-fill inspection step.

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 gives an explicit use context ('Damit pruefst du nach dem Ausfuellen, ob deine Werte wirklich angekommen sind') and routes the agent to resolve_form_answer when only answer_udid is known, or to list_formdefs/show_formdef for field keys. It does not spell out a when-not-to-use case, which keeps it below a 5.

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