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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: results include a source and a link, and omitting the term switches to a full list. It says nothing about behavior for an unknown term, which is a minor gap.

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?

Very short and front-loaded, with the core purpose first and the no-argument case next. The trailing English sentence partially restates the German opening, a small amount of redundancy that keeps it from a 5.

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 single-parameter, annotation-covered, no-output-schema tool, the description covers purpose, input semantics, and what is returned (term, source, link), which is enough to call it correctly. Only the unknown-term behavior is left unstated.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: the parameter is optional and its absence produces a complete list of terms, and it restates the concept with a worked example ('B-DKS'). This genuinely aids correct invocation.

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 a precisely scoped resource (Fachbegriffe rund um AVGS, AZAV und § 45 SGB III) with concrete examples, and explicitly notes the no-argument mode. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like avgs_fristen, ba_formulare and bdks_pruefen.

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?

'Ohne begriff: Liste aller Begriffe' tells the agent exactly how to invoke the tool for lookup vs. enumeration, which is the main usage decision for this tool. It does not name an alternative tool, but none of the siblings appears to overlap with glossary lookup.

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