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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive check. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: the threshold validity period, the prior threshold values returned via schwelle_alt_eur and schwelle_hinweis, the regulatory basis, and key output fields.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded and the description is logically ordered from function to usage to validity to outputs to examples. It is somewhat dense and repeats some output information in the returns sentence and the key output fields sentence, but the detail is mostly justified for a regulatory threshold tool.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description names the key output fields and explains the threshold regime, validity period, and sub-threshold behavior. Combined with the annotations and the fully documented input schema, an agent has enough context to call and interpret this tool correctly.

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%, so the schema already fully documents wert, auftraggeber, and leistungsart, including enum meanings and aliases. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: it checks whether a public contract value exceeds the EU procurement threshold. It also distinguishes this from the sibling find_procurement_procedures, which handles procedure-type questions, so an agent can select the right tool 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?

It explicitly says it is intended for requests asking whether a contract must be advertised EU-wide or which procurement regime applies, and it routes procedure-type questions to find_procurement_procedures. The example user questions reinforce the intended invocation context.

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