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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety bar is partly met by structured data. The description goes beyond that by spelling out the concrete consequences: a contract number is assigned, a PDF is printed, and the record becomes immutable and irreversible – exactly the operational detail an agent needs before committing.

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?

Four short, front-loaded statements with zero filler. The irreversible consequence is stated last as a deliberate emphatic close rather than buried in prose.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential facts: what side effects occur and that they cannot be undone. It stops short of covering failure modes (already issued, missing draft) or whether the generated PDF is returned, which would have made it fully complete.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Vertrags-ID'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no further meaning about the id, such as whether it must reference an existing draft or what happens if the contract is already issued.

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 ('Entwurf ausstellen' – issue a draft) and enumerates concrete effects: assign contract number, print PDF, freeze. This clearly separates it from send_contract or sign_contract, though those siblings are never named.

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 warning 'Danach unveränderlich. Nicht rückgängig zu machen.' implies the operation should only be run when the draft is final, but there is no explicit when-to-use rule, no prerequisite (e.g. draft must exist), and no routing to alternatives such as send_contract, sign_contract, or finalize_document.

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