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

Goes well beyond the annotations by declaring side-effect guarantees ('versendet nichts'), a privacy guarantee ('Gibt keine Kontaktdaten zurück'), and a non-obvious anti-pattern warning about resending during delivery_unknown/sending states. These are exactly the behavioral facts an agent could not derive from readOnlyHint/idempotentHint alone.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: what it checks, what it does not do, and the failure-mode rule. The scope statement is front-loaded before the caveats.

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-parameter read-only status check with no output schema, the description covers purpose, absence of side effects, and status-specific handling. It does not enumerate the possible status values an agent might receive, which would be the remaining useful addition.

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 token parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its opaque nature and regex constraint. The description ('mit seinem Token') adds no syntax or format meaning beyond what the schema already provides, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Prüft den Status eines vorhandenen Entwurfs oder Versands'), and implicitly separates itself from the submit/prepare siblings by noting it sends nothing. It never names a sibling tool outright, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Gives a clear operational rule for an edge case ('Bei delivery_unknown oder sending nicht erneut senden'), which tells the agent what to do with specific results. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over get_shooting_information or prepare_shooting_inquiry, so the routing guidance is incomplete.

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