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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose valuable behavior: verification is against the LATEST report, returns one of four verdicts (supported/contradicted/outdated/no_data), and includes evidence ("mit Beleg"). However, it says nothing about tolerances for matching values, auth requirements, or behavior on ambiguous input.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the purpose, supplies a concrete example, and lists the possible outcomes. No filler; every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description usefully enumerates the return states and the evidence guarantee, which is the key missing structured information. It stops short of defining match tolerance or report freshness, but is largely complete for a 4-parameter verification tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the worked example demonstrates how the parameters compose semantically (substance + city + value + implicit unit) and clarifies the relationship between a natural-language claim and the structured fields. This adds meaning beyond the schema's per-field descriptions.

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?

States a specific verb (prüft/verifies) and resource (eine Aussage) against a defined reference (neuester Prüfbericht), and enumerates the four possible verdicts. This is clearly distinct from data-returning siblings like get_water_quality or get_legal_limits.

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 concrete example ("Nitrat in Würzburg 37,3 mg/l") and outcome list imply when the tool applies – verifying a specific claim rather than fetching data – but the description never explicitly states when to use this versus get_water_quality or get_legal_limits. Usage is implied, not spelled out.

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