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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the answer is derived 'ausschließlich aus dessen eigenen Angaben', i.e. grounded only in the business's own data with no external inquiry. It does not cover failure behavior for an unknown kennung.

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 dense sentence with the key constraint (already-found business, grounded only in its own data) front-loaded and zero wasted words. The parenthetical is compact rather than 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, yet 'Beantwortet eine Frage' adequately signals a textual answer. With only two params and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything needed to invoke the tool correctly, minus edge-case handling for invalid IDs.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain the origin and meaning of 'kennung' (from betrieb_suchen) but says nothing about the 'text' parameter beyond the implied 'Frage'; half the parameters remain semantically thin.

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 (beantwortet) and resource (eine Frage zu einem Betrieb) and explicitly routes the caller to the sibling betrieb_suchen for the kennung. It separates itself from the search tool, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the near-parallel flowboxx_frage.

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 phrase 'bereits gefundenen Betrieb (kennung aus betrieb_suchen)' makes the precondition clear: this tool is used after a business has been located. No explicit when-not or exclusions are given, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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