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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses meaningful behavioral traits: it returns a list of unfilled fields under 'angaben' with a customer-facing message 'dem_kunden_sagen' to be relayed, and it describes the data points it sets (delivery date, address, payment method, optional card). 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?

The description is long but densely informative, front-loaded with the core purpose and organized with clear labels such as PFLICHTANGABEN and FREIWILLIG. It could benefit from line breaks or bullet points, but nearly every sentence carries useful information and nothing feels redundant.

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 tool with 21 parameters and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers required vs optional fields, defaults, response structure, how to communicate the full flow to the customer, and points to get_shop_info for the complete ordering workflow. The schema provides the remaining parameter-level detail.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds substantial operational meaning: it marks fields as PFLICHTANGABEN, lists optional-but-recommended fields with customer-facing rationales (e.g., phone so the driver can call, greeting card text so the bouquet arrives with a card), and states defaults (stripe payment, quantity 1, city München).

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 opens with a specific action: 'Legt einen Warenkorb bei Blumen Komander an' and clarifies that it also adds a bouquet and sets delivery/payment/optional greeting card details. This clearly identifies a create-operation on a cart and inherently differentiates it from add_to_cart and update_cart.

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 context for using the tool is implied: you use it to create a cart and place an order. The description gives practical guidance on which optional fields to offer the customer and how to handle the response, but it never explicitly states when to use create_cart versus add_to_cart/update_cart, and no exclusions or alternative triggers are provided.

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