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

Annotations cover the safety profile (non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world, non-idempotent). The description adds real behavioral constraints beyond them: only user-supplied data, no fabricated contact data, no auto-spam, and the hard privacy_consent=true requirement. It does not explain what happens after submission (e.g. whether an email is dispatched), which caps it below the top.

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?

It is a compact four-clause block, but the telegraphic German shorthand ('inkl.', proper-noun 'Vormerkung Allmannsdorf', flow tokens) makes it dense and front-loaded on constraints rather than on a plain statement of action. Nothing is wasted, yet readability for an agent is only moderate.

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 14-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical prerequisites (user data, consent) and flow routing, which is the essential guidance. It is silent on the outcome/confirmation behavior after submission, and an agent must rely fully on the schema for the remaining field semantics.

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 14 fields. The description adds semantic detail for flow ('contact' includes Vormerkung Allmannsdorf vs 'expose') and reinforces the privacy_consent requirement, but does not add meaning for the other eleven parameters, so 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?

The description conveys that this is an inquiry-submission channel (Interessenten-Anfrage) that is an alternate to tel/WhatsApp, and distinguishes it from get_contact/get_flyer which it names as preferred. The action verb is somewhat implicit ('Anfrage nur mit...'), but the resource and its role among siblings are clear enough for an agent to identify it.

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?

It explicitly frames itself as an alternative to phone/WhatsApp and names get_contact/get_flyer as the preferred route for links, giving the agent a when-to-prefer-other-tools signal. It also conditions use on user-supplied data and privacy_consent=true. There is no explicit when-NOT-to-use beyond the preference note, but the routing guidance is strong.

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