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

Annotations already mark read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world behavior. The description adds response length, own-knowledge limitation, and an honest fallback instead of fabrication, though it omits auth or rate-limit details.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by fallback behavior. 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?

For a simple one-parameter Q&A tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, response length, knowledge boundary, and fallback. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 100% and already documents the sole 'text' parameter, including the 600-character limit. The description adds no parameter syntax or constraints beyond what the schema provides, 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 'Beantwortet' and resource 'einzelne freie Frage zu flowboxx', with scope constraints of 2-4 sentences and own knowledge. Clear purpose, but it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings such as flowboxx_anfrage or betrieb_fragen.

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?

Implies use for a single free question about flowboxx and notes fallback behavior for unknown topics. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use criteria or alternatives among sibling tools.

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