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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write nature is covered; the description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the listing appears immediately or after review depending on settings, email contacts receive automatic offers, and phone-only contacts get a call from the operator. This is meaningful workflow disclosure a bare mutation flag would not convey.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the confirmation precondition and behavioral consequences. No filler, though the email/phone clause compounds two ideas in one sentence.

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 creation tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the mutation outcome and consent gate but leaves several optional parameters unexplained. The safe-write profile is carried by annotations, so the remaining gap is moderate rather than severe.

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 75%, so most parameters are already documented. The description explains the contact email/phone consequence but largely restates what the contact schema field says, and says nothing about budget_eur, house_call, text_only, or display_name, so it adds only marginal value over the schema.

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+resource combination ('Gesuch für den Nutzer aufgeben'), making the create action distinct from read-oriented siblings like get_job and search_jobs. It does not, however, explicitly name or contrast itself with any sibling, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 provides a real precondition – 'Nur nach Bestätigung durch den Nutzer' – which tells the agent not to call this without explicit user consent. But it never states when to prefer this over alternatives such as submit_offer or contact_provider, leaving usage routing implied.

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