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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that by disclosing the consequence: the payment's month becomes blocked again until the payment is linked or booked. It does not state any precondition (e.g., that the payment must currently be marked) or permission requirements.

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 the action stated first and the consequence second; nothing is wasted. Minor deduction for the ambiguous "it" in the second clause, which a reader must resolve from context.

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 a fully described two-parameter schema, a present output schema, and annotations covering the mutation profile, the description supplies the missing piece: the downstream business effect of unmarking. Only preconditions and the relationship to link/book siblings are absent, which is a minor gap for a tool this simple.

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% with only two required parameters, each documented in the schema itself. The description only alludes to "a payment" (transaction_id) and adds no format, identifier, or company-scoping detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter burden.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource: removing the "Später klären" mark from a payment. The inverse sibling mark_spaeter_klaeren is not named explicitly, but the operation's direction is unambiguous. The dependent clause ("it blocks its month again") has a slightly unclear pronoun referent, but the core action is clear.

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 implied rather than stated: the phrase "until it is linked or booked" hints at when the unmark is appropriate, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance. Alternatives that would resolve the state instead of unmarking it (link_beleg, book_transaction, mark_spaeter_klaeren) are not mentioned despite being present as siblings.

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