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

Annotations only declare readOnly/openWorld/destructive flags, so the description adds real value: it discloses that user data (name, contact, location, message) is forwarded to the provider, that the provider replies directly to the user, and that internet links are disallowed. It stops short of describing confirmation, failure modes, or rate limits.

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?

Four short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the consent requirement and data-transmission semantics come first. Slightly terse on downstream behavior, but nothing 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?

For a 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the consent prerequisite, the transmitted payload, and a content restriction. It could say more about confirmation or post-send behavior, but an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 already high (86%), yet the description still adds meaning by mapping which fields are transmitted ('Name, Kontakt, Ort und Nachricht') and reinforcing the consent gate that the consent parameter encodes. The optional text_only parameter is left to the schema alone.

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+resource ('Einen Anbieter ... anfragen') and its scope, plus where the provider_id comes from ('aus search_providers'). This lets an agent distinguish it from search_providers, register_provider, and provider_reviews without opening any schema.

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?

It gives an explicit precondition ('Nur nach Zustimmung des Nutzers') and implies the workflow of first searching via search_providers. It does not, however, state when-not to use it or name explicit alternatives beyond the ID source.

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