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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds substantial context beyond that: the legal basis (EFZG), temporal scope (ab 2015), geographic restriction, and the specific rule content (six weeks, four-week waiting period, six/twelve-month deadlines, 100% pay, medical certificate). This gives the agent a clear picture of what information the tool will expose.

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 compact and front-loads the jurisdiction, but it is somewhat messy: the German sentence trails off with 'ärztliche Feststellung bei …' and the English sentence largely restates the German list. It is not poorly sized, but the truncation and redundancy make it less polished than it could be.

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 only two optional parameters, no required inputs, and no output schema, the tool is simple. The description adequately conveys the subject matter, but it does not explain the behavior when 'bestandteil' is omitted (returning all components) or clarify that the 'datum' parameter may affect which legal status applies. These are not fatal gaps but are left to inference.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by mapping the enum ids in 'bestandteil' to human-readable, bilingual topic summaries (Duration, waiting period, deadlines and proof), which helps an agent interpret concepts like 'fortsetzung_pause' or 'bescheinigung_ab_dauer_ueber' that are otherwise opaque in the schema.

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 clearly identifies the tool as providing legal reference information on Entgeltfortzahlung under the German EFZG since 2015, and enumerates the specific topics it covers (duration, waiting period, deadlines, pay percentage, proof). It is not a tautology and is distinct in subject matter from siblings like hr_krankengeld, though it does not explicitly name a sibling or draw the boundary.

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?

The description gives helpful context ('Nur Deutschland', EFZG, since 2015) and implies the tool is for questions about continued pay during sickness. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over closely related siblings such as hr_krankengeld, and no when-not-to-use or alternative routing.

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