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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world), and the description adds substantial value on top: the full result vocabulary (verifiziert, existiert_nicht, nicht_auffindbar, weggefallen, nichtig, abweichung, etc.) plus returned fields (beleg, vorschlaege, warnung) and ECLI detection. The only gap is that it does not explain how ambiguous or unparseable citations are surfaced operationally.

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?

Purpose and input contexts are front-loaded before the result-code enumeration, and every clause carries information. The long semicolon-chained status list is dense and hard to scan, which costs it a point, but nothing is redundant.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return semantics, and it does so exhaustively: all eleven status values are defined, including the subtle distinctions (existiert_nicht only for Normen; nicht_auffindbar when court and year exist but no match) and the warning fields. Combined with the annotations and full schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (text with its 60.000-character cap, rechtsraum) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameter behavior, 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 and resource: it checks all Normzitate, Aktenzeichen and Fundstellen of a text against the corpus. The operation is unmistakably distinct from the sibling lookup tools (gesetze_finden, urteile, suche), which retrieve rather than verify a supplied text.

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?

Names concrete input contexts (Schriftsatz, Gutachten, KI-Antwort) and closes with a scope exclusion: 'Bewertet nur den Bestand, nicht die Echtheit.' No sibling tool is named as an alternative, so the routing guidance is contextual rather than explicit.

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