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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral content beyond that: it spells out the completeness guarantee ('vollständig') and the exact facets returned (roles, validity period, review status, source), which tells the agent not to expect a partial or summary payload.

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?

One dense but front-loaded sentence that opens with the verb and the completeness claim before listing facets. Nothing is wasted, though the facet list is long enough to slightly obscure the core action.

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 single-param read with an output schema, the description is sufficient: the agent knows the id source (via schema), that the result is a complete rule event, and roughly what fields to expect. Only the routing against rules_for_code is left implicit.

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% and there is a single required id, so the schema carries the parameter burden; the description adds no syntax or format detail for it. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the description's enumerated content describes the response, not the input.

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 ('ein Regelereignis vollständig') and enumerates what the payload contains, so the agent knows this is a full-record fetch by id. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling rules_for_code, which is the tool that produces the id it consumes.

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?

Usage is only implied: the description is a pure 'get' and the id-provenance hint ('Kennung aus rules_for_code') lives in the schema, not the description. There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus rules_for_code or the *_search siblings.

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