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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description goes beyond that with substantive constraints: it asks at most three fixed questions, returns exactly three proposals (klein/mittel/groß), and explicitly makes no promises about prices, dates, or feasibility — a real scope boundary.

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, but front-loaded with the core action and each clause earns its place (behavior, count limits, output shape, exclusions). No filler or repetition.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully explains what comes back (a summary plus three proposals) and what is deliberately withheld. Minor gap: the exact trigger distinguishing the question-asking state from the summary state (presence of antworten) is left implicit.

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 67%: antworten and session_id are described in-schema, while brief carries no description. The description implicitly clarifies brief (freier Kundenwunsch) and the follow-up answer flow, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (klärt einen freien Kundenwunsch) and describes the actual multi-step behavior (fixed follow-up questions, then a summary with three proposals). However, it never names or contrasts with its siblings (flowboxx_anfrage, flowboxx_frage), so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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 workflow is described (ask questions while mandatory data is missing, then produce proposals), which implies when the tool is appropriate. But there is no explicit when-not or routing guidance versus the very similar-looking sibling tools, so usage must be inferred.

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