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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). Beyond that, the description discloses substantive domain behavior: which allowance categories are computed (full day, arrival/departure day including the >8h single-day rule, meal reductions, overnight rate). It does not state the return format or currency, but the added computational context is real value.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the core purpose before enumerating the allowance categories. Dense but with no filler; the colon list of sub-allowances is slightly heavy but each item earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing what is returned, and it does so by enumerating the computed allowance categories. Combined with 100% parameter coverage and full annotation coverage, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the value format (e.g., EUR amounts) is unstated.

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%: the single 'land' parameter is fully documented as an ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code with a Germany default. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Liefert') and a precise resource ('steuerlichen Verpflegungspauschalen 2026') scoped to one country. The per-country scope implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling pauschalen_alle_laender, so an agent can route between them 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?

Usage is implied by the scope ('für Deutschland oder ein Land der BMF-Tabelle'), and the description names the default when no country is given. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this over pauschalen_alle_laender or verpflegung_berechnen, leaving the agent to infer the choice.

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