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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden – and it does meaningful work: it discloses that links are not opened, that nothing is stored, and that the analysis covers SPF/DKIM/DMARC, Reply-To redirects, forged display names, Punycode and shortlink resolution. It also names the three output verdicts. It stops short of stating permissions, rate limits, or processing-time expectations.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the opening clause, with two short trailing sentences for privacy and output. The middle parenthetical enumerating detection signals is dense but each item is informative, so little is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description appropriately fills that gap by naming the three verdict categories (unauffaellig / verdaechtig / gefaehrlich) and noting a Begründung accompanies them. Combined with the disclosed non-destructive behavior, an agent has enough to call the tool and interpret the result, though error and empty-input behavior remain unstated.

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% and there is a single parameter whose schema entry already lists the accepted content forms and the 100,000-character limit. The description repeats that enumeration rather than adding syntax, format, or length guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ("Bewertet") and resource ("verdächtige Mail") and enumerates exactly what input forms are accepted (headers, full source, body text, or a single link). It is clearly distinguishable from generic tools, but it never positions itself against the closely overlapping sibling link_pruefen or mailcheck_start, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage is implied by "verdächtige Mail" and the listed input types, so an agent can infer the context. However there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the alternative tools (e.g. link_pruefen for a bare link, mailcheck_start for a full workflow), leaving routing to inference.

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