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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the full lifecycle: a DRAFT is created first, activation requires clicking a confirmation link mailed to kontakt_mail and is valid 48 hours, and nothing is created without zustimmung=true. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs for a mutating, non-idempotent entry tool.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the constraints. Every sentence carries a distinct, necessary fact (draft state, confirmation mechanism, hard requirement, use case) with no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description covers the essential behavioral outcome (draft until confirmed, not discoverable until active). Minor gaps remain regarding the optional arrays and any pricing/notification nuances, but the agent has what it needs to call this correctly.

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?

With schema coverage at 60%, the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: it explains that kontakt_mail drives the confirmation mail and that zustimmung=true gates the entire operation. It leaves the optional fragen and leistungen fields unexplained, but the critical parameters are clarified.

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 and resource: registering a business with contact details into the flowboxx customer list. It is clearly differentiated from read-oriented siblings like betrieb_suchen and betrieb_fragen, though no sibling is named explicitly. An agent knows exactly what action this performs.

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?

The final sentence gives an explicit when-to-use condition: an AI acting on behalf of a business that wants to become contactable. It does not name alternatives or state when-not to use it, but the use case is unambiguous.

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