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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the agent knows this is a non-destructive, non-idempotent write confined to the flowboxx world. The description adds that the request is routed to a human, which is meaningful behavior, but says nothing about delivery, response timing, or whether the request can be withdrawn.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does before the usage condition and the field clarifications. No filler, though the parameter clarifications at the end could have been compressed since the schema already covers them.

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 mutation tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the definition covers what it does, when to invoke it, and how the free-text fields should be filled. What is missing is minor: how the gespraechsverlauf payload relates to flowboxx_bedarf and what the user should expect after submitting.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description restates the kontakt rule (e-mail OR phone, at least one) and the anliegen company-name allowance, both largely mirrored in the schema field descriptions, so it adds little genuinely new parameter meaning. The optional gespraechsverlauf parameter is not addressed in the description at all.

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: it leaves a contact request for a human at flowboxx. The action is unambiguous and distinct from a pure lookup tool, but it never names or contrasts against close siblings such as flowboxx_frage or betrieb_anfrage, which an agent could easily confuse with this one.

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?

"Nutzen, wenn der Nutzer ausdrücklich Kontakt aufnehmen oder eine Anfrage hinterlassen möchte" gives a clear triggering condition and the word "ausdrücklich" usefully signals not to fire speculatively. It stops short of naming the alternative when the user only has a general question rather than a request (e.g. flowboxx_frage).

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