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

Richly describes behavior beyond annotations: creates a draft first, requires email confirmation via kontakt_mail with 48-hour validity, only then becomes active and discoverable by other KIs, and requires zustimmung=true or nothing is created. This adds critical two-phase commit semantics not captured by the annotations (which only state non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent).

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?

Four sentences, each informative and front-loaded with the core action first. Slightly dense but every sentence earns its place by explaining draft mechanics, the zustimmung guard, and intended usage. Minor room for tightening prevents a 5.

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?

Given a complex creation tool with 10 parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the essential behavioral contract: draft state, email confirmation flow, and the hard zustimmung requirement. It leaves some optional parameters implied, but the key agent-facing information is present.

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 60%, so the schema documents most parameters. The description adds meaning for zwei kritische Parameter: kontakt_mail (receives the confirmation email) and zustimmung (required true otherwise nothing is created). However, it does not compensate for the remaining undocumented parameters (ort, name, fragen, leistungen), 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 (anlegen) and resource (ENTWURF im flowboxx-Hub für einen Betrieb), making the action clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like betrieb_anfrage or flowboxx_* tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Provides clear context: 'Nutzen, wenn eine KI im Auftrag eines Betriebs diesen ansprechbar machen moechte.' This tells the agent when to use it, but does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it is a 4 rather than a 5.

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