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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it is general information, not individual legal advice, and it must always include an offer for an independent expert appointment or callback. This helps the agent set user expectations correctly.

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 every part earns its place: the phrase examples, the legal disclaimer, and the required follow-up are all actionable. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses parenthetical examples efficiently, though it could be slightly tightened.

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 a single parameter, rich annotations, and an existing output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what input to supply, what the tool does, what follow-up tools to reference, and the important scope limitation. Nothing critical is missing.

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?

The schema description covers 100% of the single parameter and already defines 'text' as the letter text or relevant excerpt. The description reinforces this instruction, but adds only marginal value beyond the schema because it does not introduce new parameter constraints or format requirements.

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: it decodes letters from the opposing motor-liability insurer and recognizes common claim-reduction phrases. It also lists concrete examples of patterns and clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like finde_werkstatt or melde_schaden.

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 states clearly when to use the tool: when a user has a letter from the opposing Kfz-Haftpflichtversicherung and needs it decoded. It also gives operational guidance, such as passing the text or a relevant excerpt and always offering next steps, but it does not explicitly describe when not to use it or name alternatives in a conditional way.

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