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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, lowering the burden. The description adds useful calculation details (rate per year, caps, discount logic), but does not describe the return format or output structure.

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?

A single sentence packs the core formula, limits, and optional discount details without redundancy. The main calculation is front-loaded, and every phrase contributes to understanding the tool's behavior.

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 calculation tool with rich schema coverage and safety annotations, the description provides sufficient detail on the formula and parameter effects. However, it does not describe what the tool returns (e.g., a number or object), which is a minor gap given no output schema.

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%, so the schema already defines each parameter. The description adds semantic meaning by linking parameters to the calculation logic (e.g., 3.6% discount per year before age limit, maximum 10.8%), going beyond the schema's field descriptions.

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 ('Rechnet') and resource ('Ruhegehaltssatz nach § 14 BeamtVG'), and gives the exact formula. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied by the calculation nature; no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and alternatives are not mentioned. An agent can infer the tool is for pension rate computation.

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