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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, none of which the description contradicts. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: the result is a draft, and the source quote is mutated to 'accepted' — a side effect on another record that no annotation conveys. Missing only auth/permission notes.

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 compact sentences: action and outcome first, optional parameter second, required follow-up last. No filler and nothing buried.

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 no output schema, the description implies a draft is produced but doesn't say what is returned (new document ID? draft object?) for chaining a finalize_document call. Otherwise the mutation semantics, optional parameter and sequencing are covered.

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 only 50% and the 'quantities' property has no schema description, so the description's '{Angebotspositions-ID: Menge}' mapping is essential and well explained. For 'id', the phrase 'aus einem ausgestellten Angebot' narrows the generic 'Beleg-ID' to the quote record, though it never states the expected ID type explicitly.

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 and resource pair: turn an issued quote (Angebot) into an invoice draft, and adds the side effect 'markiert es als angenommen'. This clearly separates it from siblings like create_document (generic creation) and finalize_document (the named next step).

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 precondition 'aus einem ausgestellten Angebot' tells the agent the source must be an issued quote, and 'Danach finalize_document' gives the correct follow-up call. No explicit exclusions (e.g. what to do for already-accepted or already-invoiced quotes), so not a full 5.

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