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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds behavioral context by naming the legal aspects computed and the 'Stichtag' (cutoff date) requirement, but it does not specify the output format or any pagination/limits. Given the annotations cover safety, the description provides sufficient additional context.

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 and structured, with a German main sentence and an English summary. It front-loads the critical scoping ('Nur Deutschland') and then lists key topics. It could be slightly shorter, but it is not overly verbose and includes both languages for accessibility.

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?

The tool has complex subject matter (German labor law) and no output schema, yet the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a text explanation, values, or a summary). It also does not state the default behavior when no parameters are provided (today's date and all components), which is implied by the schema but not described. For a specialized tool, this is a notable gap.

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%, with both parameters (datum and bestandteil) already documented in the schema. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; it lists topics but does not explain parameter usage in more detail. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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's domain (German temporary agency work under AÜG) and lists specific legal aspects like maximum assignment duration, equal pay, and minimum wage. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming the subject matter explicitly, and the English summary reinforces its scope for non-German speakers.

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 clear context about what the tool covers (Germany, Zeitarbeit, since 2015, specific legal components), but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives. Since the sibling list covers many HR topics, an agent can infer this tool is for Zeitarbeit, but there is no direct exclusion or alternative guidance.

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