Abmahnexperte.de

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

Beyond the annotations (openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses that data leaves the system to a third party and that a case is created — consistent with openWorld and non-idempotent hints. It also usefully states that the lawyer-forwarding checkbox is set by the person in the form, so the agent should not fabricate consent. It stops short of warning that repeated calls create duplicate cases.

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 with zero redundancy; the restrictive usage condition is front-loaded before the behavioral description. Every clause adds information the schema does not carry.

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 an open-world, non-idempotent submission tool with no output schema, the description covers the destination, the side effect, and the consent-handling rule. Gaps remain around failure behavior and duplicate-submission consequences, which matter for a non-idempotent call that transmits personal data.

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 already 86%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns one more by clarifying the source of the einwilligung value (the checkbox the person set themselves) and the form origin of kennung, which the schema alone does not convey. No extra detail is added for dateien limits or the optional fields, but the schema covers those.

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 action (sendet Angaben und Dateien an Abmahnexperte.de) plus the side effect (legt den Fall an), so the agent knows this is a submission that creates a case externally. It does not, however, explicitly separate itself from the near-identically named sibling abmahnung_einsenden — it only cites the form 'Abmahnung einsenden', which could be misread as pointing at that tool.

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?

'Verwende das nur aus dem Formular „Abmahnung einsenden“' is an explicit usage restriction with a clear triggering context. It lacks a positive statement of what to do instead when the data did not come from that form (e.g. use abmahnung_einsenden), so the routing is implied rather than complete.

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

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

Annotations already say readOnly/non-destructive, but the description adds the crucial mechanism: a form opens, the user picks the PDF/photo, reviews the data, sets the consent checkbox for lawyer referral, and submits themselves — the tool transmits nothing. It also notes fields can be prefilled (e.g. the deadline). This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs and cannot infer from structured fields.

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, then behavior, then exclusions — good ordering. The parenthetical case-type and English-synonym enumerations are long but each aids retrieval matching; the only cost is density, not wasted 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 is needed since the tool returns a UI form rather than data, and the description covers what the form does, who submits it, what consent is required, and what the tool explicitly does not do. Everything required to invoke it correctly is present.

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%, so each parameter is already documented, including the "falls sie sie genannt hat" optionality. The description adds only a light hint that fields may be prefilled, e.g. the Frist from the letter, which is marginal beyond the schema and does not explain formats such as JJJJ-MM-TT.

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 concrete action on a concrete resource: it opens the in-chat form "Abmahnung einsenden" for a cease-and-desist/demand letter. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sending sibling by declaring "dieses Werkzeug sendet nichts", so an agent can separate it from abmahnung_absenden.

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 an explicit trigger (person received a Abmahnung/Unterlassungserklärung/Zahlungsaufforderung) and an explicit, unusually thorough exclusion list — general legal questions, payment reminders/Inkasso, employer or landlord warnings, criminal matters, and any request for the app itself to assess the case. Alternatives are named in prose (specialist lawyer, Abmahnexperte.de, free initial assessment).

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive and a closed world; the description reinforces the closed-world limit with 'Nur Seiten von abmahnexperte.de' and states the output is plain text. It adds a meaningful boundary the agent would otherwise miss: this is general information, not a legal assessment ('Einschätzen kann nur der Anwalt'). Invalid-URL or fetch-failure behavior is left unstated, so not a 5.

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?

One dense paragraph that front-loads the use case, then the read behavior, then exclusions — a sensible order with no filler. It is on the long side for a single-parameter tool, but each clause (use case, source of URLs, domain limit, exclusions) carries distinct 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?

For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns (page text), where the input comes from, host restriction, and the boundary against legal advice — everything needed to invoke it correctly. Annotations cover the safety profile.

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% and includes an example URL, so the schema carries the syntax. The description still adds value by telling the agent where URLs come from ('die Adressen nennt abmahnung_ratgeber_uebersicht') and restricting them to the abmahnexperte.de host, which is not encoded in the schema.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Liest eine Seite von abmahnexperte.de als Text') and scopes it to details on Abmahnwellen, firms, or topics. It also explicitly separates itself from the sibling that supplies the addresses (abmahnung_ratgeber_uebersicht), so an agent can route correctly without opening a 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 both sides of the routing decision: use it when someone wants specifics on a Abmahnwelle/firm/topic or the current overview, and an explicit when-NOT list (general legal questions without such a letter, payment reminders/collections, employer or landlord warnings, criminal matters, legal assessment). The alternative source for URLs is named directly.

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

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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent, non-destructive tool, but the description adds important context beyond that: it explains what content is returned, notes that the first assessment is free, mentions data handling, and clarifies that the app cannot provide a legal assessment—only a lawyer can.

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?

The description is essentially one very long sentence packed with parenthetical examples, synonyms, and exclusions. The actual purpose ('Liefert Ablauf, Kosten, häufige Fragen...') appears late, after a lengthy usage-trigger preamble.

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 zero-parameter informational tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the tool returns, when to use it, when not to use it, which sibling handles reading, and the legal-boundary limitation. An agent has everything needed to select and invoke it correctly.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline for zero-param tools is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details, and the schema is effectively complete for an empty input.

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 deliverable: process, costs, FAQ, and a list of guide and topic pages with addresses from abmahnexperte.de. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling abmahnung_ratgeber_lesen, which is named as the tool for actually reading the guides.

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?

It gives detailed when-to-use triggers (receiving a cease-and-desist letter, pre-formulated declaration, payment demand, law-firm letter, etc.) and an explicit when-not-to-use list (general legal questions, payment reminders/collections, employer/landlord warnings, criminal matters). It also routes the agent to abmahnung_ratgeber_lesen for reading the linked guides.

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