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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about geographic scope, legal basis, and output components, but it does not disclose defaults or behavior when no parameter is provided.

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 geographic restriction, followed by a clear list of values and the year range. The English mirror sentence is slightly redundant but improves accessibility without bloating the text.

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 lookup with two optional, fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description supplies the essential domain constraints: country, year range, legal references, and available components. The exact response shape is not described, but this is unlikely to prevent correct invocation.

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 documents both parameters fully, including the jahr bounds and the bestandteil enum values. The description adds only the 'Kohortenjahr' framing, which reinforces the meaning but does not provide new parameter-level details.

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 specific legal values (Versorgungsfreibetrag, Zuschlag, Altersentlastungsbetrag), their forms (percent and maximum amount), and the cohort-year range. It is unmistakably distinct from sibling tools, though it uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'calculates'.

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 'Nur Deutschland' and cohort-year framing imply the intended context, and the legal references clarify the subject matter. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions relative to related siblings such as hr_steuerfreie_betraege or hr_bav_hoechstbetraege.

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