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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real behavioral context beyond them: the return is a line-by-line gross-EUR invoice with a deep link back into the price calculator, and crucially that no request/booking is transmitted; the region limit is also disclosed inline.

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 core capability is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the return behavior plus the 'no request sent' caveat follow logically. Mild redundancy from the repeated 'auf Wunsch' construction, but no sentence is filler.

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?

With nine parameters, six enums and no output schema, the description correctly fills the return-value gap by describing the line-item EUR invoice and the calculator link, and it states the geographic and >500 m² boundaries. It stops short of clarifying the Pflegeplan radius/dependency at the description level (that sits in the schema), which is a minor omission for a tool of this complexity.

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 each of the nine parameters is documented at the field level, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates the option groups (Fuge, Imprägnierung, Farbbeschichtung, Unkrautbekämpfung, Pflegeplan-Preis je Besuch) without adding format, dependency or default semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Berechnet den Preis ... für die Reinigung einer Pflaster- oder Terrassenfläche') and scopes it geographically to Schleswig-Holstein and Hamburg, including the optional add-ons. It is clearly distinguishable from heckenschnitt_preis_berechnen by resource, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling steinreinigung_fugen_vergleichen, leaving that differentiation to inference.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent can infer this is the price-calculation tool, and 'Sendet keine Anfrage' usefully signals that calling it is non-committal. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no reference to the sibling fugen_vergleichen tool, which an agent comparing the two would want.

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