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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the bar for added context is higher. The description does disclose the substantive rules (10 vs 15 days), the version date of those rules, and that two end dates are returned because VK Bund and OLG Bremen diverge with the BGH undecided. That is genuinely useful behavioral context beyond the annotations, though it stops short of describing the full response payload or error cases such as invalid dates.

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-loaded with purpose and usage, then parameters, then the divergence caveat, then sibling routing. Every sentence carries substantive content; the example questions are the only arguably redundant part, but they serve query-matching.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry return semantics; it names the two end dates and the zuschlag_praktisch_* and praxishinweis fields, which is enough to know what comes back. It does not enumerate the remaining response fields or the exact date formats returned, leaving a small gap for a legally sensitive tool.

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%, so the 3 baseline applies, but the description still earns extra credit by disambiguating absendung (post-evaluation bidder information, not the contract notice) and by explaining what the optional land actually feeds (state public holidays in the practical award date). elektronisch and its 10/15-day mapping are restated from the schema rather than added to.

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 with legal precision: calculates the earliest award date after bidder information under § 134 GWB. It also explicitly routes the adjacent deadline calculation to the sibling calculate_tender_deadline, so the agent can separate the two without opening schemas.

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 an explicit intended-request condition ('when the user asks when the standstill period ends or from which date the award may be made') plus the alternative sibling for tender/participation deadlines. The example user questions reinforce the trigger phrases an agent would match on.

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