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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real behavioral value beyond them: it never recommends data deletion, and it escalates to support on data-loss indications, telling the agent what output to expect in that case.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler: purpose first, then the no-deletion guarantee, then the escalation rule. Every sentence earns its place and the most decision-relevant content is front-loaded.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the safety plus escalation behavior is covered. Only sibling differentiation and explicit routing guidance are missing, which is a minor gap for a read-only guide tool.

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%; all four parameters (problem, context, language, platform) are documented in the schema, including the language enum and default. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond this, 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?

The description states a specific verb (liefert) and resource (nummerierte kurze Schritte aus freigegebenen Artikeln), so an agent knows it produces step-by-step repair guidance. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish this from siblings like get_faq or search_help, which could also surface help content.

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: it is the tool to call for a problem in need of troubleshooting steps. It adds one concrete exclusion rule (data-loss signs trigger an immediate support referral rather than steps), but names no alternative tool to route to, so the when-to-use guidance is incomplete.

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