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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: the operation is a non-destructive job whose cost is zero, 'kunde' never exposes seed or costs regardless of the schalter flags, both modes embed an EU AI Act Art. 50 disclosure in page and image files, and completion requires polling lab_get_dossier. This is exactly the context the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint pair cannot convey.

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-loads the artifact and output format, then layers mode rules, cost, and async behavior with no filler sentences. The filename specification and semicolon-chained clauses make it denser than ideal, but every clause carries information.

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 burden of describing the return artifact and does so (ZIP, offline index.html, media naming). It also covers async job handling and the disclosure requirement, leaving no material gap for correct invocation.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by explaining modus semantics (what 'kunde' hides) and clarifying that switches cannot override the client-mode filtering. It adds nothing for auswahl, bild_ids, video_ids or schalter keys, which remain schema-only.

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 artifact: build a dossier ZIP containing an offline index.html plus media, with an explicit naming scheme. It is clearly distinguishable from generic export siblings like lab_get_export or lab_schnitt_export.

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 clear operational context: 'kunde' vs 'intern' select audience, the call is free (no credits), and it runs asynchronously so the agent must poll lab_get_dossier. It does not compare itself against other export tools, so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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