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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the derived rules (5 Werktage für den Bericht, Feiertage des Bundeslands, unverzüglich bei Nichtantritt/Abbruch, Ausschlussfrist § 326 SGB III) and the fact that a legal basis plus source URL is returned.

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 verb and resource are front-loaded, and the enumerated deadline list is dense but each item carries information about what is computed. The only waste is the trailing English sentence, which largely duplicates the German content.

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, the description need not explain return values, and it still usefully flags the computed deadline set and the holiday-dependence on Bundesland. The only gap is the absence of any when-to-use guidance, which is minor for a single-purpose calculator.

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 (including the enum meanings and the 'Ohne Angabe: Feiertage nicht berücksichtigt' default) is already fully documented in the schema. The description only restates the optional parameters in parentheses and adds no syntax, default, or interaction detail beyond it — 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 precise verb+resource ('Berechnet alle Fristen eines AVGS-Teilnehmers (§ 45 SGB III) aus Teilnahmeende') and enumerates the concrete deadline types produced. It is clearly distinct from the sibling tools (ba_formulare, bdks_pruefen, glossar), none of which compute deadlines.

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 by the input contract (Teilnahmeende required; Beginn/Abbruch/Bundesland optional) and the tool's scope, but the description never states when to reach for this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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