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

Annotations already establish a safe, idempotent, closed-world read. The description adds real value beyond them: it commits to returning only documented limits and never fabricating content, and it specifies the NOT_FOUND outcome for undocumented features — a concrete behavioral guarantee the annotations cannot express.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core action and the no-fabrication guarantee front-loaded. Every clause carries meaning.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-format explanation is unnecessary, and the description covers the one non-obvious behavior (NOT_FOUND on undocumented features). It is nearly complete, though it never routes the agent to sibling tools for adjacent needs.

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 description coverage is 100%, with enum values and a default already documented for audience and language. The description only restates audience scoping and adds no syntax, format, or defaulting detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Erklärt") and resource ("Vetofix-Funktion") scoped to a target audience, which distinguishes it from generic siblings like get_faq or search_help. It does not, however, explicitly name or contrast itself against those siblings.

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?

Usage is implied: you call it to explain a named feature to one of three audiences, and the NOT_FOUND note signals that only documented features are valid input. There is no explicit when-to-use versus get_faq/get_troubleshooting_guide/search_help guidance or exclusion criteria.

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