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

The description states that an email is sent to the business itself, which is an external side effect, while the annotations set openWorldHint=false. This contradicts an external communication and is a serious inconsistency. The readOnlyHint=false annotation aligns with mutation, but the open-world contradiction dominates.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and effect. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 mutating tool that sends external email with four required parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits permissions, delivery expectations, and most parameter meanings, and its open-world contradiction further reduces completeness.

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 only 25%: kontakt is described as 'E-Mail oder Telefonnummer', but kennung, name, and anliegen have no descriptions. The tool description adds only that kennung comes from betrieb_suchen, leaving three of four parameters semantically unexplained.

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 action (Anfrage hinterlassen), the resource (Betrieb aus dem Hub) and the source of the identifier (kennung aus betrieb_suchen). It does not distinguish itself from the sibling betrieb_fragen, so a 5 is not justified.

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?

Implies usage after betrieb_suchen by pointing to kennung as the identifier source, but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative (e.g., betrieb_fragen).

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