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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context about the data scope (West and East) and the types of values included, which goes beyond the annotations. It does not disclose any unexpected behaviors or side effects, but none are expected given the read-only, idempotent nature.

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 concise, with two short sentences that immediately state the scope and content. It is front-loaded with the key constraint ('Nur Deutschland') and lists specific items. The English translation is redundant for German speakers but may aid international agents; still, it does not waste space. The trailing '…' is slightly ambiguous but acceptable.

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?

For a simple read-only retrieval tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description gives the core content and scope. However, it does not describe the output format or structure (e.g., whether it returns a list, a map, or separate West/East values), nor does it clarify the meaning of 'reference value'. While not severely incomplete, it leaves some ambiguity for an agent expecting a concrete response shape.

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?

The schema provides complete descriptions for both parameters (jahr and datum), including defaults and alternatives, with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema fully documents the parameters.

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 states the tool returns social insurance contribution ceilings (BBG), compulsory insurance threshold (JAEG), and reference values for Germany, for years from 2015 onward. It names specific resources and is distinct from sibling tools like hr_beitragssaetze (rates) or hr_einkommensteuer_eckwerte (tax key figures).

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 provides a usage constraint ('Nur Deutschland') and the scope of what it covers, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. There is no reference to sibling tools that might be more appropriate for different needs (e.g., contribution rates). The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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