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

The readOnlyHint annotation covers the read-only safety profile, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond it: it specifies what data will be returned (Anschrift, Steuernummer, Bankverbindung) and that the data source is the access-bound Betrieb, implying no external identifier is needed. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 description is a single front-loaded sentence that names the action, the resource, the binding context, and the returned data categories. Every part contributes meaning and there is no redundant or filler 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it explains what is read, whose data is read, and which fields are included. It does not describe the exact return format or error cases, but the simplicity of the tool makes this acceptable.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description still clarifies the implicit input context: the relevant Betrieb is determined by the current access/Zugang, which prevents an agent from expecting a parameter for selecting the business.

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 plus resource: "Liest die Stammdaten des Betriebs" and enumerates the contained fields (address, tax number, bank details). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like rechnung_lesen, which target invoices, and the various Prüf tools, which validate rather than retrieve master data.

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?

The use case is implied: call this tool when the current business's master data are needed, since it reads data for the Betrieb the access belongs to. However, no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or alternative tool comparison is provided, leaving some inference to the agent.

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