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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the behavior of field validation (allowed types and options/rating rules) but doesn't mention any side effects, permissions, or return behavior. Since it's a create operation, the action itself is transparent, but additional behavior like idempotency or error handling is not addressed.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and the second sentence adds necessary details about field types and conditions. No fluff, every sentence contributes to the definition.

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 create tool with a rich schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, the allowable field types, and conditional parameters. It doesn't explain return values, but no output schema exists; and since the schema is detailed, the description is adequately complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 description largely repeats the schema's parameter information (field types, options, max). The only added detail is the default of 5 for rating's max, which is not in the schema. This small extra bump justifies a score just above the baseline, but since most param semantics come from the schema, a 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('legt an') and resource ('neuen Tracker'), and distinguishes it from siblings like create_board and add_field by focusing on the tracker creation with fields. It also gives a clear scope of what's included (frei definierbare Felder) and lists the allowed field types.

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 implies the usage context: it's for creating a new tracker with custom fields, and provides details on field type constraints which guide when to use it for certain field configurations. It doesn't explicitly contrast with create_board or add_field, but the resource name and wording make the intended use clear, so the context is evident.

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