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

With only hint-level annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description carries real weight and delivers: it discloses that the user's name, contact, location and message are transmitted to a third party, that the provider replies directly to the user, and that consent is mandatory. It does not mention rate limits, reversibility, or what happens on failure, leaving a few gaps.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying distinct information: what the tool does, the consent precondition, the data flow and follow-up, plus a constraint. Front-loaded with the action and free of filler.

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 an 8-parameter, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers the essential contract: consent gating, transmitted fields, and result behavior. It omits finer points such as handling of phone/text_only preferences and error cases, but the schema descriptions largely cover those.

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 88%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning: it lists which fields (Name, Kontakt, Ort, Nachricht) actually travel to the provider and clarifies that provider_id must come from search_providers. That is useful semantic framing beyond the per-property 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 (anfragen) and resource (Anbieter aus dem Verzeichnis), and explicitly ties provider_id to search_providers, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like register_provider or provider_reviews. An agent can identify the operation and its input source without opening the 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?

Gives a clear precondition ('Nur nach Zustimmung des Nutzers') and points to search_providers as the way to obtain provider_id, establishing the intended workflow. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when-not-to-use conditions, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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