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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds real value: free preview, PDF/photo upload, per-position check against the Betriebskosten- und Heizkostenverordnung, and the instruction to pass the link through unchanged. That last directive is exactly the kind of behavioral guidance annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loads the target audience and the returned artifacts, with the pass-through instruction placed last as an action note. It is dense but every clause carries information; the appended English gloss is somewhat redundant for a German-language tool but aids agents.

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 no-required-param, read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what the caller receives (link plus workflow plus deadline). Permissions, rate limits, or the exact link format are not addressed, but nothing essential to a correct call 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% and both parameters are already documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a minor nuance by implying the objection deadline is only returned 'wenn das Zugangsdatum bekannt ist', which loosely ties to received_on, but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema.

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 action and the concrete deliverables: the NebenkostenPro upload link, the workflow, and the objection deadline. The 'check' framing implicitly separates it from the sibling 'start_bill_creation', though the alternative is never named explicitly.

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 opening 'Für Mieter, die ihre eigene Nebenkostenabrechnung prüfen lassen möchten' identifies the audience, which implies when to use it, but there is no explicit when-not guidance and no alternatives (e.g. start_bill_creation, calculate_deadlines) are named.

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