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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint, so the description is free to add the substantive behavioral context it does: the legal ruleset snapshot date (2026-08-15), the treatment of EU vs. sub-threshold regimes, the state-dependent branching for bundesland, special-case triggers, and the caveat that the result is guidance rather than a binding decision.

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?

Information is front-loaded: purpose and return vocabulary first, then scope, then edge-case behavior, then the disclaimer. It runs long, and the trailing example-question block plus the two sibling references add bulk, but nearly every sentence carries actionable content.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description defines the result vocabulary (frei, voraussetzung, nein, legal basis) and the guidance-only nature of the output, so an agent knows what it will get back. Combined with the required-input triad (value, authority type, service category) being explained, nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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 baseline would be 3; the description earns extra by explaining the non-obvious interaction between bundesland and regelwerk ('Usually empty, since bundesland selects the framework. Only relevant below the EU threshold') and by grouping the boolean special cases conceptually. It stops short of documenting individual parameter ranges, which the schema already handles.

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 ('Lists which procurement procedure types are permitted for a contract') and immediately names the return shape (frei / voraussetzung / nein plus legal basis). It also names the adjacent siblings (calculate_tender_deadline, score_bids) so an agent can separate it from neighboring tools without opening a 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 an explicit trigger condition ('Intended for requests where the user asks which procedure type may or must be used'), enumerates the inputs that drive the answer, and lists five concrete example user questions covering the main intents. It also points to alternative tools for the downstream tasks (deadlines, bid scoring).

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