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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds genuinely new behavior: the register is a fixed set of 55 official folders, the returned fields (publisher, pages, fillable PDF, direct PDF link, check date), and the fallback behavior when nothing matches (states covered plus Federal Ministry of Justice nationwide forms). That fallback disclosure is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry.

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?

The usage trigger and resource scope are front-loaded, and the example queries plus the no-match fallback sentence both earn their place. It runs long in a single dense block and could be split, which keeps it just under the top mark.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still gives a compact inventory of what the register returns and what happens on a miss, so an agent knows both the input contract and the failure path. Nothing needed to call this 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%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description adds a useful constraint the schema does not: 'Needs only a place name or a state.' With zero required parameters, this tells the agent that either field alone suffices and both are not needed, which resolves a real ambiguity.

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 and resource ('free emergency or estate planning folder ... from their district, city or state in Germany') and names the underlying register of 55 official folders on vorsorge-regeln.de. This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling tools, which are calculators (erbquoten_berechnen, notarkosten_berechnen) and a facts lookup (vorsorge_fakten).

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?

Gives explicit activation context ('Use when someone looks for...') plus three realistic example phrasings, which is strong routing guidance. It stops short of naming a sibling or stating when NOT to use it, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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