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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it returns a personal plan with deadlines as dates and names needs and deadlines, while explicitly excluding tariffs and insurers.

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?

The description is two tightly written sentences. It front-loads the main purpose and follows with the output scope and exclusions, with no redundant or filler text.

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 six parameters, high schema coverage and rich annotations, the description is largely complete. It clarifies the plan's content and deadlines and sets exclusions, though it could say more about when to choose this tool over its siblings.

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 high at 83%, so the schema already documents most parameters including land, start, status, kv, kinder and verband. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: it creates a personal roadmap covering Krankenversicherung, Beihilfe, Diensthaftpflicht, Dienstunfähigkeit and Pension around the Referendariat. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as pension_berechnen or starttermine.

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 phrase 'rund um das Referendariat' implies the usage context, and the exclusion of tariffs and insurers sets a content boundary. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of siblings like pension_berechnen, starttermine or regeln_bundesland.

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