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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely non-redundant fact — the request is delivered by email to the business itself, an external side effect — but says nothing about irreversibility, repeat calls sending duplicate mails, or what the caller receives back.

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, well front-loaded: the action first, the routing constraint and delivery detail second. No filler, though the parenthetical hint could be integrated more tightly.

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 non-idempotent, externally-visible write with no output schema, the description should say more: it never states that all four fields are transmitted, whether a confirmation or reference is returned, or whether repeated calls create duplicate emails. Annotations plus the email-delivery note make it minimally viable but incomplete.

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% (only 'kontakt' has a description), so the description must compensate. It clarifies the origin of 'kennung' (from betrieb_suchen), which is real value, but leaves 'name', 'anliegen' and even 'kontakt' semantics (whose name/contact is this — the requester's?) unaddressed for a 4-required-parameter tool.

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 concrete verb and resource: it leaves a request ('Anfrage') directly with a business from the hub, and it ties the operation to the sibling betrieb_suchen as the source of kennung. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similar-sounding betrieb_fragen or flowboxx_anfrage, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

It implies usage by noting that 'kennung' comes from betrieb_suchen, which tells the agent this is a follow-up to a search. However it gives no when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to betrieb_fragen or flowboxx_anfrage, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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