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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the output explains the letter, states the claimant's rights, and always includes an offer for an independent expert appointment or callback. It also includes a legal disclaimer ('KEINE individuelle Rechtsberatung'), which is helpful and not contradicted by annotations.

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 description is longer than average but each part earns its place: purpose, common phrases to detect, required next step, input instruction, disclaimer, and completeness criterion. It is front-loaded with the main action and uses structured, readable sentences, though the list of phrases adds bulk.

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?

Given one parameter, rich annotations, an output schema, and sibling tools listed, the description is complete. It covers what input to provide, what behavior to expect, the mandatory next-step offer, and the legal limitation. An agent has enough information to invoke this tool correctly and to integrate it with the named sibling tools.

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 for the single 'text' parameter is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a useful nuance beyond the schema by clarifying that the agent can pass either the full letter or a relevant excerpt, and specifies the source document type. This slightly improves parameter understanding.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Entschlüsselt ein Schreiben der gegnerischen Kfz-Haftpflichtversicherung') and details what the tool does: recognize typical claim-reduction phrases, explain their legal meaning, and always propose an expert appointment. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like claimondo_finde_gutachter_termine, which are named as follow-up actions rather than the core purpose.

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 description tells the agent to pass the letter text or a relevant excerpt as 'text' and states that a consultation without offering an expert appointment is incomplete. It also gives context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly spell out when not to use it versus alternatives like claimondo_pruefe_anspruch.

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