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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful provenance behavior: every fact carries a legal source, an official link, and the date it was checked.

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 description is front-loaded with the usage instruction and then lists concrete fact categories. It is somewhat dense and the final topic list duplicates the schema enum, but every element contributes to routing and none is misleading.

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 one required enum parameter and an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It supplies enough topic coverage and provenance context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly; only explicit sibling routing 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 the single parameter is an enum whose values are already documented in the schema. The description repeats the topic list, which helps confirm routing but does not add syntax or interpretation beyond the schema baseline.

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 description states a specific resource and scope: German fees, deadlines and rules on estate planning documents and inheritance. It enumerates concrete facts (Vorsorgeregister fees, § 7 BtOG certification, BMJ forms, inheritance tax allowances, etc.), making it clearly distinguishable from calculation-oriented siblings such as erbquoten_berechnen and notarkosten_berechnen.

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 tells the agent to use this instead of answering from memory, which is a strong usage directive. It does not name sibling tools or state exclusions, but the factual-lookup vs. calculation distinction is clear from the purpose.

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