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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: the token itself is the authorization, the tool is read-only, it intentionally returns only a coarse status label and no personal data, and invalid/unknown references yield 'kein Fall gefunden'. It also explicitly warns against guessing or inventing a status, which is highly valuable for an agent.

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 front-loaded with purpose and context, and every major point earns its place: token provenance, authorization, read-only behavior, no-PII guarantee, and error handling. The redundant 'Args' block repeats the schema but is small and does not significantly hurt readability.

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 read-only status lookup with an output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent when to use it, how to obtain the token, what the tool will and will not return, and how invalid references behave. No critical operational detail 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 input schema already fully documents the token parameter and its description, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful context by explaining the token's provenance (Claimondo link received via WhatsApp) and its role as authorization, which goes beyond the schema. However, it does not provide format examples, length constraints, or pattern details.

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 states a specific action and resource: returning the rough processing status of a previously reported claim. It clearly ties the tool to cases created via claimondo_melde_schaden/claimondo_rueckruf and explicitly frames it for the customer question 'wo steht mein Fall?', which distinguishes it from siblings like claimondo_pruefe_anspruch.

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 gives a clear condition for use: a returning customer asking about case status and providing their personal reference token. It implies when not to use it (when no token is available) but does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, so it falls short of full guidance.

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