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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: it explicitly disclaims any booking or registration side effect, and notes the response also reports whether the link is available. That exceeds the annotation baseline, though return shape details are thin.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the no-side-effect caveat second. No filler, though it could be marginally shorter without losing information.

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 single-enum, read-only link resolver with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description tells the agent what is returned (a link plus availability) and that nothing is booked. Sufficient to invoke correctly; only missing explicit sibling routing.

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 100% and the enum values are fully documented in the schema. The description merely re-lists the same three options (Erstgespräch, Gratis-Material, Webinar) without adding format or selection nuance, so the schema does the heavy lifting – the correct baseline of 3.

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 specific verb and resource ("Liefert den passenden Link für den nächsten Schritt") and enumerates the three link categories, so an agent knows exactly what the tool returns. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings saxsoc-geo-ask/info/search, keeping it one notch below top marks.

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 use case (resolve the right next-step link) and gives a boundary with "Führt keine Buchung oder Anmeldung aus". However it never states when to choose this over the sibling ask/info/search tools, so usage guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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