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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that a human will follow up on the request, which is useful behavioral context, but says nothing about confirmation, error handling, or duplicate-submission behavior for a non-idempotent write.

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 purpose followed by usage and field clarification. No filler, though the final field note is somewhat redundant with the schema.

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 simple contact-submission write with no output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger, and the two ambiguous text fields. It omits post-call expectations (confirmation, human response time) but is otherwise sufficient to invoke the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description restates that kontakt is email or phone and that anliegen may include a company name - useful emphasis but essentially a repetition of the schema descriptions, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource: it leaves a contact request for a human at flowboxx. An agent can tell it creates an inquiry rather than answering one. However it never names the close sibling betrieb_anfrage or flowboxx_frage, so differentiation must be inferred from the names.

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?

Gives a clear triggering condition - use when the user explicitly wants to make contact or leave a request - with 'ausdruecklich' acting as an implicit qualifier against casual chatter. It does not, however, name any alternative tool or state when not to use it, leaving the routing between it and betrieb_anfrage/flowboxx_frage unaddressed.

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