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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false): states it does not affect hosting, deliberately returns no result link (agency-account explanation), reports the actual reported state rather than always 'started', and makes no runtime commitment. This is rich disclosure an agent could not get from structured fields.

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 the core purpose, then layers behavioral detail; each sentence carries distinct information (result routing, no link, honest state reporting, no runtime promise). It is dense for a single-parameter tool but not padded, so it earns most of its length.

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 still characterizes the response (reflects the reported state, may name a failed/unknown state) and points to where completion is observed. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and only one parameter (domain) is described there as 'Die Domain, z. B. example.de'. 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+resource ('stößt ... einen Performance-Scan an') and immediately frames the scope against the automatic run. It is clearly distinguishable from the read-only siblings get_performance_findings and get_performance_score, which it explicitly names.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it (to avoid waiting for the next automatic run) and where the result lives — exclusively get_performance_findings, while get_performance_score stays stale. This routes the agent to the correct follow-up tools without inference.

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