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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint/openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: nothing is sent or persisted, and the user sees and edits the summary before submission (human-in-the-loop). It does not describe the link's lifetime or return shape, but the added context is substantive.

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?

Single dense paragraph that front-loads the most important constraint (prepare-only, nothing sent or stored), followed by field guidance in priority order. Every sentence carries information, though the summary constraints partially duplicate the schema text.

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 does convey that the output is a prepared link subject to user review, and it covers the required field plus both routing modes. It leaves the concrete return payload (link format/expiry) unstated, which is a minor gap for a read-only, idempotent tool.

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 only 40%, so the description must compensate, and it does for the most error-prone fields: 'need' is constrained to a branch slug from list_categories (not free text) and the providerSlug/serviceSlug pairing is explained. The summary constraints largely restate the schema description, which caps this below 5.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('einen Anfragelink vorbereiten') and immediately scopes it with 'ausschließlich' plus the two things it does NOT do (send an inquiry, store data). That negative scoping cleanly separates it from the search/get siblings, which do retrieve data rather than stage a request.

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?

It explicitly routes between two invocation modes: direct inquiry via providerSlug (+ optional serviceSlug from the public profile) versus personal mediation when providerSlug is omitted. It also names list_categories as the source for the need slug. It stops short of stating when to prefer this tool over search_providers/get_provider, so no explicit exclusions.

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