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

Annotations already declare write, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: a two-step flow where the inquiry is only forwarded to up to 15 regional providers after the user confirms on the website, and that forwarding requires explicit consent. It does not cover permissions, failure modes, or duplicate-submission behavior.

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?

Three dense sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The 'Variante B' label is slightly opaque without context about variant A, but otherwise the prose is efficient.

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 16-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description explains the process and outcome (confirmation email, later forwarding) reasonably well. It omits what happens when consent is false, error/duplicate behavior, and the distinction from the sibling formular-link variant.

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 all 16 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only reinforces the semantics of nutzer_hat_zugestimmt, adding no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 concrete verb and resource: it creates an inquiry in the user's name and sends a confirmation email. The 'Variante B' prefix implies an alternative variant but never names or contrasts the sibling tools (anbieter-suchen, formular-link), so an agent must infer which path applies.

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 establishes a precondition (explicit consent via nutzer_hat_zugestimmt) and describes the gated flow, which implies when the tool is valid. However, there is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternative guidance against formular-link, which appears to be the other submission variant.

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