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

Annotations only tell the agent this is a non-destructive write. The description adds real behavioral context the annotations cannot: undeclared material defaults to AI, declaration inspects the file for an AI mark, a found mark overrides the declaration back to AI and the response explains why, and listing surfaces the `wirksam` effect. These are exactly the side effects an agent needs before calling.

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 definition, then the two operating modes, then the compliance consequence. Dense but purposeful; the parenthetical explanations of 'eigen'/'ki' and the AI-mark check earn their space. Slightly packed into two long sentences.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing what the agent gets back in both modes (the reason an AI mark forced 'ki', the per-declaration effect). For a 3-parameter tool with a clear dual mode, nothing material 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. The description still earns a bonus by explaining the joint semantics of the parameters (herkunft and asset_key must be supplied together to declare; project_id alone means list) and by tying the listing output to the `wirksam` effect, meaning beyond the schema's terse field notes.

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 pair (declare or list) plus the exact resource: the origin of a project's material, spelled out as 'eigen' vs 'ki'. An agent can tell immediately this is about provenance declaration, not asset editing or 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?

Explicitly routes usage by parameter combination: 'With asset_key + herkunft: declare' and 'With project_id only: list'. It also gives the downstream rationale (EU AI Act Art. 50 per-clip disclosure). It stops short of naming when NOT to use it versus provenance-adjacent siblings, but the mode selection is unambiguous.

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