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

Goes beyond the annotations by stating what the output contains (a line-by-line calculation in gross Euro including cleanup, transport, disposal and travel) and, crucially, that no request is dispatched — reinforcing the read-only profile with real meaning for the agent. It adds no cost-variance or accuracy caveats, keeping it at 4.

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: what it estimates and where, which inputs matter, what comes back, and the side-effect guarantee. The input list is a compact preview rather than redundant restatement, and the key facts are 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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing the return value's structure and components. With full schema coverage on all seven parameters, the only remaining gap is minor — it doesn't explain the seasonal/pruning legal constraint or that hedge type does not affect price, both of which live in the schema.

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 the enum parameters carry rich per-value explanations, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description names only four of the seven inputs (Länge, Höhe, Flächen, Kürzen) and adds no format or unit detail beyond what the schema provides — baseline 3.

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 ("Schätzt den Preis") plus the exact resource (Heckenschnitt), the provider (Pflasterlux) and the geographic scope (50 km um Fleckeby). The resource is plainly distinct from the steinreinigung siblings, so an agent can route without opening either 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 clear context for use: an estimate, limited to a 50 km radius, requiring length and height. It never names an alternative tool or an explicit when-not-to-use case, so 4 rather than 5.

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