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

Annotations already establish readOnly=true, idempotent=true, openWorld=false. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: every message states the rule verbatim with its source location, and it disclaims legal advice and individual-case review. It does not mention result format details, but the output schema covers returns.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by the rule taxonomy and disclaimers. It is dense but each segment (rule classes, verbatim citation behavior, disclaimers) carries distinct value; only the list of example numbers borders on exhaustive detail.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't describe return values, and it appropriately describes what messages contain ('nennt die Regel im Wortlaut und ihre Fundstelle'). It covers rule categories and scope limitations, leaving only minor gaps around which tool to use for adjacent needs.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (nummern, daten) are already documented in the schema, including the repeated-number and date-alignment semantics. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 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 and resource: it checks whether GOÄ numbers may be billed alongside one another per the GOÄ wording. It enumerates the exact rule classes it evaluates (exclusions, 'nur neben', frequency limits, surcharges), which sharply distinguishes it from sibling tools like goae_calculate and goae_lookup.

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 makes the applicable scope clear (combination/billing-side-by-side checks) and sets boundaries with 'Keine Rechtsberatung, keine Prüfung des Einzelfalls'. It does not explicitly route to a specific sibling (e.g. use goae_calculate for fee amounts), so it gives context but not full when/when-not routing.

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