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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the operation needs the original account and the access key, a useful authorization signal, but does not disclose token expiry, error behavior, or whether the quote can be re-fetched after booking.

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 tight sentences, with the action and returned content front-loaded before the prerequisite sentence. No filler, though it could drop the redundant authorization note given the schema already conveys it.

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?

A read-only tool with a full output schema and complete annotations needs little prose, and the description covers purpose, returned data, and prerequisites. Complete enough to call correctly, with only minor gaps around lifecycle (e.g., whether the quote expires).

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 schema already documents quote_id, quote_token, and language with formats and constraints. The description only vaguely gestures at 'Konto' and 'Zugriffsschlüssel' without adding syntax or semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (prüfen) and resource (eigenes Coworking-Angebot), and enumerates what is returned (gültige Tage, Preise, Bedingungen), distinguishing it from write siblings like prepare_booking/confirm_booking. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with adjacent read siblings such as get_booking or get_price.

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 notes prerequisites (original account + access key required), which implies the usage context, but gives no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives. An agent must infer that this retrieves a previously prepared quote rather than booking or pricing.

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