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

Annotations already declare a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) that is not idempotent, so the agent knows repetition is risky; the description adds the useful constraint to collect customer confirmation before sending. However, it never says whether answering closes the Rückfrage, whether a second call replaces prior answers, or what happens on partial/invalid answers – material gaps for a non-idempotent mutation.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then the payload, then the prerequisite. Every clause carries information; nothing is repeated from the title.

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?

Returns are covered by the output schema and all five parameters are fully described in the schema, so the description only needs to convey intent and the confirmation workflow, which it does. It falls short of complete by omitting post-submission effects (question closure, resubmission semantics) for a non-idempotent write.

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 value formatting, document kinds, and the order_token privacy note. The description only restates the same grouping ('values keyed by the item keys get_status listed, files the question asks for, and an explanation') without adding syntax or edge-case guidance beyond the schema, 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 ('Answers') plus the exact resource ('the open question (Rückfrage) about an ordered certificate') and the payload it takes (values, files, explanation). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like add_document or update_order, which do not target an open inquiry.

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?

'Ask the customer first and send only what they confirmed' gives a concrete precondition and a workflow constraint that no sibling tool states. It implies when to use this rather than add_document or update_order but never names those alternatives or says what to do if no open question exists.

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