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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral details beyond that: Germany-only scope, data only from 2015 onward, all stages in one call, and the fields included per stage. No contradiction with annotations.

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-loaded with the most important constraint ('Nur Deutschland'), then summarizes scope, output fields, and use cases in a single dense sentence. The optional English translation is redundant but adds accessibility without bloating the content.

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?

Given no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned components (Gültig-ab, Werten, Rechtsgrundlage, Quelle) and the available filters. This is sufficient for an agent to understand what it will receive. Minor details about output shape or error behavior are not covered, but the schema and annotations carry the rest.

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 schema already documents all four parameters. The description lightly mentions 'von, bis' and 'Bestandteil' but adds no semantic detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline of 3.

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 HR reference tables) and the action (retrieving their historical stages since 2015), and the word 'Verlauf' / 'history' distinguishes it from sibling tools that likely expose current values. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'lists', so it stops just short of the strongest purpose statement.

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 concrete use cases: tracking development over years or finding all changes within a year. This is clear context for when the tool is appropriate, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives or state when not to use them.

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