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

Annotations already establish this as a pure read-only, idempotent, closed-world calculation. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: the DM-to-Euro conversion rate (1.95583), the two regulatory regimes and their thresholds, and proportional sharing across patients in one household. For a calculator with no side effects, this is solid additional disclosure.

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?

It is a single dense, run-on sentence packing thresholds, regulations, exchange rate, and patient logic into one breath. There is essentially no filler, but the wall-of-text structure hurts readability and front-loading beyond the opening clause. Conciseness is good; structure is weak.

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 calculator with an output schema already present, the description need not explain return values. It covers the domain rules and input regimes thoroughly, giving the agent enough to invoke it correctly. The main missing piece is explicit routing against 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 schema already documents km, nacht, patienten, gefahreneKm, and abwesenheitStunden. The description reinforces the semantics (night window 20–8, proportional split for multiple patients, over-25 km behavior) but largely restates what the schema already provides, so 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?

The description names a specific resource and computation domain: Wegegeld (travel fee) per § 8 GOÄ and Reiseentschädigung per § 9 GOÄ, computed in Euro. This distinguishes it from general siblings like goae_calculate, since it is scoped to travel allowance specifically. The verb is implied by the title (berechnen) rather than restated, but the purpose is unmistakable.

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 reveals the internal branching logic (≤25 km uses § 8 radius rules; >25 km uses § 9 per-km/absence/overnight rules), which implicitly tells the agent how inputs map to regimes. However, it never explicitly states when to call this tool versus goae_calculate or the other goae_* siblings, so usage is inferred rather than directed.

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