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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety and open-world profile. The description adds that this is a direct, targeted lookup rather than a search, which is useful but does not disclose details like pagination, sorting, or what happens when no dates exist. 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?

A single, well-structured sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action ('Fragt einen Traeger direkt ab') and then adds the key routing context.

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 description is adequate for a read-only point query with a well-documented schema, and the title clarifies that the result is about Abfuhrtermine. It could be slightly more complete by stating what is returned or emphasizing the `traeger_id` requirement, but the available context makes correct invocation achievable.

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 all seven parameters are already documented in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb ('Fragt ... ab') and identifies the exact resource ('einen Traeger'), and the title states the resource is Abfuhrtermine for a specific Traeger. This clearly separates it from broader search tools like abfuhrtermine or finde_traeger.

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 clear usage context: use this for follow-up questions from `abfuhrtermine` or when the Traeger is already known. It does not explicitly name alternatives for the opposite case (e.g., when the Traeger is not yet fixed), so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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