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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful constraints ('Nur Deutschland', 'Stichtag ab 2015') and lists legal areas, but it does not disclose output format or behavior for invalid/unsupported dates. With strong annotations, this is adequate but not rich.

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 short and front-loaded with the key restriction ('Nur Deutschland'). The bilingual repetition is mild and useful for an international agent, and the list of topics provides concrete examples without becoming an exhaustive catalog.

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 broad reference tool with two optional, well-described parameters and strong annotations, the description covers the essential scope: Germany, date threshold, headcount-based thresholds, and major legal areas. It does not specify the exact output shape, but the term 'Schwellenwerte' and the schema descriptions make the tool callable.

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 input schema already covers both parameters fully (100% coverage). The description adds human-readable meaning and example thresholds ('mehr als 10', 'ab 5'), plus the 2015+ date restriction, which helps map enum ids and the datum parameter to real-world concepts.

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 resource: German labor-law thresholds by employee count at a specific date, with concrete examples such as Kündigungsschutz (>10) and Betriebsrat (≥5). It is specific enough to be distinguished from sibling tools, though it lacks an explicit action verb like 'returns' or 'lists'.

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 implicit usage context: only for Germany, thresholds by headcount, and a date from 2015 onward. However, it does not name sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so guidance remains 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.