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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false. The description goes beyond them by explaining the handoff mechanism (the recipient reviews and submits) and adding a privacy constraint not to pass health data, which is genuine behavioral context. Link lifetime/validity and what a generated link looks like are still undisclosed, so not a 5.

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 tight sentences: what is returned, what it explicitly does not do, and the data-protection caveat. The key constraint is front-loaded and no sentence is filler.

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 five optional parameters, no output schema and strong annotation coverage, the description gives enough for correct invocation, including the safety-relevant caveat. It could say more about which parameters are meaningless for which 'weg' branch, but nothing essential 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 80% and each parameter carries its own description, including the enum meanings for 'weg' and slug examples for 'land'. The description adds no parameter-level information, 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 concrete verb and resource: it returns a pre-filled link to either the Ref-Check or the Kontaktformular. The two output paths are named, so the agent understands what is produced. It never references the sibling tools (fahrplan_erstellen, starttermine, etc.), so explicit differentiation is missing, which keeps it at 4.

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 description makes the usage model clear: the tool only hands off a link and the person completes the submission themselves, so the agent must not treat it as an inquiry-submission tool. It clearly excludes the submit/creation use case, but it offers no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over the sibling planning/calculation tools.

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