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

Annotations only carry the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive); the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the data comes from a once-daily turbocheck report, the response contains a timestamp, and "keine Funde" is explicitly warned not to mean an active scan just ran. This freshness caveat prevents a real misinterpretation.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then the freshness caveat, then the alternative-tool pointer, in three tight sentences with no filler. Every clause 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?

For a simple read-only status tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the data source, staleness semantics, and sibling routing. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly and interpret the result is missing.

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?

There is a single parameter (domain) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it ("Die Domain, z. B. example.com"). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

Specific verb ("abrufen") plus resource ("Sicherheitsstatus einer Domain") with the concrete contents enumerated (Malware-Funde, Schwachstellen, offen erreichbare Dateien). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_wordpress_hardening, so an agent can route correctly 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?

States when to use it and names the alternative explicitly ("Für den Härtungsstand von WordPress selbst stattdessen get_wordpress_hardening verwenden"). The condition selecting the alternative is spelled out, leaving nothing to inference.

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