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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses that the token itself is the authorization, that the result is deliberately coarse and excludes PII, and that unknown/invalid references resolve to 'kein Fall gefunden' rather than fabricated data. This is substantive and helps prevent hallucinated statuses.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the structure is organized, but the Args block partly repeats the schema and 'Read-only' repeats the annotations. Still, the behavioral warnings earn their place for a tool that must avoid fabricating statuses.

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 tool with an output schema, the description supplies essential usage context: who the end-user is, where the token comes from, what the response is and is not, and the invalid-reference behavior. Nothing material 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The prose adds value by characterizing the token as the authorization and by stating the no-guessing rule and behavior for unknown references, going beyond the schema's field description.

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 ('Gibt ... zurück') plus a clear resource (Bearbeitungsstand eines zuvor angelegten Falls) and scopes it to cases created via claimondo_melde_schaden/claimondo_rueckruf. This clearly differentiates it from the sibling tools.

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?

It gives a concrete trigger ('wiederkehrender Kunde, der fragt wo steht mein Fall') and a prerequisite (case previously created via claimondo_melde_schaden/claimondo_rueckruf). It does not explicitly state when-not-to-use alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to route correctly.

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