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

Annotations already declare readOnly/non-destructive/closed-world, so the bar is lower, but the description still adds real behavior: unfinished packages first with newest-first ordering, finished ones after, and the meaning of next_package_id as the recommended next work item. It does not state that archived packages are excluded by default, which the schema only hints at.

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?

Two dense sentences: ordering first, then the identifier rules, with no filler. The compressed phrasing ("darin die neuesten zuerst") is slightly harder to parse than it needs to be, keeping it off a 5.

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 read-only, 5-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and even documents the key return field. Minor gaps remain: the default exclusion of archived packages and what happens if a name matches multiple children are left unstated.

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?

With 60% schema coverage, the description compensates by explaining the relationship between student/class/class_id — a first name must be paired with a class, except for children without a class — which the schema does not state. It leaves class_id and the archived flag to the schema, and introduces next_package_id as a return field.

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?

"Alle Lernpakete eines Kindes" states a specific resource and scope, and the ordering rules plus next_package_id make clear this is a per-student package listing rather than a generic list. It does not name a sibling (e.g. list_support, get_support_progress) to contrast with, so it falls just short of 5.

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 explains how to identify the child (student_id, first name + class, or first name only for classless children), which is practical guidance for invoking it. It never says when to prefer this tool over list_support or get_support_progress, nor any exclusion conditions, so usage is only implied.

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