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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful claim that the record is returned "vollständig" with all affected codes and their roles, but says nothing about error behavior for an unknown id or about output size/pagination.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the enumeration of returned fields is compact and informative. Slightly over-dense for one sentence but nothing wasted.

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 document return values, and one fully documented required parameter plus read-only annotations means little else is required. Purpose and payload scope are covered adequately for a simple getter.

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?

Only one parameter, and schema description coverage is 100% — the schema already explains that the id comes from 'rules_for_code' and gives concrete examples. The description adds no additional meaning about the identifier format or semantics, 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?

States a specific verb ("Liefert") and resource ("Regelereignis") and enumerates the payload (betroffene Kodes mit Rolle, Geltungszeitraum, Prüfstatus, Quelle), so the agent knows exactly what it gets back. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling rules_for_code, which an agent could easily confuse with it.

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 contains no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites and no mention of alternatives such as rules_for_code. The only routing hint lives in the schema property description ("Kennung aus 'rules_for_code'"), not in the tool description itself.

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