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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds domain behavior beyond that: the output magnitude (250/400/600 €) and that the calculation includes Kürzung and Betreuungsleistungen, which the schema does not convey.

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 compact sentences with the calculation scope front-loaded. The trailing English sentence largely restates the title and is redundant, but the overall length is well controlled.

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 8-parameter deterministic calculator with no output schema, the description supplies the key missing output context (payout tiers, reduction, care benefits). It stops short of explaining the full result shape or which inputs drive each tier, but is adequate overall.

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 each of the 8 parameters documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax, units, or conditional requirements beyond what the schema already states.

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 (Berechnet) and resource (Ausgleichszahlung nach EU-Verordnung 261/2004) with concrete payout tiers (250/400/600 €) and the three triggering scenarios. It clearly distinguishes itself from the bus/ship/train compensation siblings by naming the flight regulation.

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?

The enumerated cases (Verspätung, Annullierung, Nichtbeförderung) imply when the tool applies, matching the 'reason' enum. However, it never explicitly routes the agent to or away from the sibling compensation calculators, so the modal choice is left to inference.

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