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

Annotations already fully declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so no side-effect disclosure is needed. The description adds the pricing logic (0.30/0.20 € per km), which is useful behavioral context, but says nothing about boundaries beyond the schema (e.g. rounding, output shape).

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler, front-loading the core purpose and rates before the exclusion. Every clause carries information.

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 pure calculation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the rate constants an agent needs to anticipate the result. Combined with annotations that cover the safety profile, only minor gaps remain (rounding/format of the returned value).

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 67% and already documents km and hin_und_rueck, while fahrzeug carries only an enum. The description compensates by mapping the vehicle enum values to their rates (PKW 0,30 €, Motorrad 0,20 €), adding meaning the schema does not provide.

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 (berechnet) and resource (Kilometerpauschale) and even names the exact rates. It explicitly excludes a related but distinct concept (Entfernungspauschale für den Arbeitsweg). However, it does not reference the sibling tools (pauschalen_land, verpflegung_berechnen), so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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?

Clearly scopes usage to Dienst- und Geschäftsreisen with the employee's own vehicle, and gives an explicit exclusion (not the commuting Entfernungspauschale). It lacks any routing to the sibling pauschale/verpflegung tools, but the when-to-use condition is unambiguous.

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