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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the real burden and does so well: it discloses the async contract ('Returns right away with `lauf_id`; the run continues on the server'), the refusal conditions, the per-node gating (approved keyframe, project cost cap), the stop-on-cap behavior, and the reservation/budget_exceeded semantics of auto_lauf_id. This is materially more than the annotations provide.

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 trigger condition and the alternative, then the return contract, then the budget rules. It is long, and the final sentence about auto_lauf_id reservations is dense, but nearly every clause conveys a behavior the caller must know, so little is wasted.

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 nested-object, async, budget-governed tool with no output schema, the description supplies everything needed: the immediate return value, the follow-up tool, the failure modes, and the cost semantics. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly 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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds a genuine constraint the schema does not encode: workflow and inputs must be the SAME ones that were quoted, and angebot_id must come from lab_flow_angebot. That match-or-refuse rule is the key invocation detail and it lives only in the prose.

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 ('Run a Flow (Pipeline) that was quoted with lab_flow_angebot') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the quote tool (lab_flow_angebot) and the follow-up tool (lab_flow_status). An agent can place this tool in the quote→run→status chain without opening any 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 explicit preconditions ('Use when the person has seen the quote ... and says to run, start or execute it', 'Only after the person confirmed the price') and names the alternative path ('a changed workflow, an expired quote (24 h) or a quote that was already used is refused; get a new quote then'). When-to-use, when-not-to-use and the alternative are all present.

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