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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses a 30-minute TTL on the draft, that no email is dispatched (a real side-effect boundary for a non-readOnly tool), and that the return payload is a summary plus a confirmation token. The annotations only carry the generic safety flags, so this added context is substantive.

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 with zero filler: purpose first, then the side-effect constraint, then the required user-facing step. Every sentence earns its place and the core action is front-loaded.

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 still names the return contents (summary + confirmation token), the TTL, and the consent workflow the agent must follow. Combined with 100% schema coverage, nothing needed to invoke it correctly 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 description coverage is 100% with 6 well-documented parameters, so the schema already carries the field semantics (including the package enum and the optional message guidance). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Erstellt einen ... Entwurf einer unverbindlichen Anfrage') and immediately contrasts itself with the sending step via 'Kein Mailversand', which is exactly what distinguishes it from submit_shooting_inquiry. An agent can tell it is the draft/preparation step without opening any schema.

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 operating context and ordering constraint: the draft is valid 30 minutes and the summary must be shown before asking for explicit consent, implying the submit step comes after. It does not explicitly name submit_shooting_inquiry as the follow-up tool, so the routing is inferred rather than stated.

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