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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuine substance beyond that — the exact formula (Punktzahl × 5,82873 Cent × Steigerungssatz), per-line cent rounding, the default 'Ohne Satz wird die Schwelle angesetzt', the Begründungspflicht thresholds (2,3/1,8/1,15), and the § 6a reductions (25 %, 15 %, except Zuschlag J). It does not cover failure modes, but the return contract is covered by the output schema.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and nearly every phrase carries regulatory information, so it is not padded. However, the body is one sprawling sentence of formula jargon with no separation of concepts, making it hard for an agent to parse quickly.

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 complex, rule-heavy calculation tool with an output schema, 100% parameter coverage and readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description supplies enough domain context to invoke it correctly (formula, rounding, caps, reductions, defaults). Missing only routing guidance to/from the sibling tools.

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 description does add some meaning — the enumeration of tarife (with § references) and the rule that an omitted Steigerungssatz defaults to the Schwelle or the tarif's Höchstsatz — but this largely restates what the schema's 'factor' and 'tarif' descriptions already say.

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 and resource ('Berechnet eine Privatrechnung nach GOÄ') and names the domain rules it applies (Steigerungssatz, Höchstsätze je Tarif, Minderung § 6a). An agent can tell it apart from the goae_lookup/goae_search siblings, which retrieve rather than compute. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with goae_check_combination despite overlapping functionality.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus goae_lookup, goae_search, or the sibling goae_check_combination. The clause 'Prüft zugleich die Kombination' hints at overlap with goae_check_combination but never tells the agent which to prefer. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name and domain knowledge.

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