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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioural context beyond them: the answer is derived 'ausschliesslich aus dessen eigenen Angaben', i.e. no external sources are consulted, which tells the agent what the answer can and cannot contain.

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 compact sentence with no filler, and the identity/scope constraint is front-loaded. Efficient, though the parenthetical could be slightly tighter.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key precondition, scope, and source of the answer. It omits failure behaviour for an invalid kennung, which keeps it from a 5.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It does explain that kennung originates from betrieb_suchen and that the tool handles a Frage (implying text is the question), but the text parameter's format and expected phrasing are left implicit. Partial compensation for an undocumented schema.

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 (beantwortet) and resource (Frage zu einem bestimmten Betrieb), and explicitly ties the kennung parameter to betrieb_suchen, which separates it from siblings like betrieb_suchen or betrieb_anfrage. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not state what kind of answer is returned.

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?

States a clear precondition: the business must already be found and its kennung obtained from betrieb_suchen. This implicitly routes the agent to betrieb_suchen first. It does not name an explicit alternative or when-not-to-use case, so it falls short of a 5.

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