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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — every value carries a source and as-of date — but says nothing about what happens with an unrecognized Bundesland input.

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?

Two compact sentences, no filler, with the substantive field list front-loaded and the provenance caveat placed last. Every clause maps to something the agent needs.

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 no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields, which is exactly what an agent needs to judge relevance. For a read-only single-parameter lookup whose annotations already cover safety, only error behavior for invalid state inputs 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 100% and the single 'land' parameter already documents accepted forms (slug, full name, abbreviation with examples). The description adds no further detail about the parameter, 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?

The description enumerates exactly what the tool returns for one Bundesland: Beihilfe rates, pauschale Beihilfe, competent office, deadlines, Vorbereitungsdienst duration and age limit. It is specific about the resource but never frames the action ('liefert/ruft ab'), and it does not name which sibling handles the adjacent questions (pension_berechnen, anwaerterbezuege).

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the reference-lookup tool for state-specific Beamten rules. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to an alternative such as pension_berechnen for actual calculations, even though siblings overlap in domain.

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