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

Annotations already declare readOnly/destructive=false and closed-world, so the safety bar is met. The description adds genuine behavioral detail beyond that: contact data is withheld, an empty list is returned when the entry is no longer visible, and shared jobs return the group card with search_jobs-shaped fields.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, then edge-case behavior. The URL fragment is illustrative rather than wasteful, though the phrasing 'Leere Liste' inside a single-item getter takes a moment to parse.

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?

With no output schema, the description covers the return shape (empty list on invisibility, group card for shared jobs, fields matching search_jobs) and the notable omission of contact data. Nothing essential for a correct call is missing.

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 0% for the single required job_id, so the description must compensate. It only implies the value format via the '#gesuch=12' URL fragment, giving a usable hint about what the integer represents but not stating it directly.

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: fetching a single visible Gesuch, explicitly without contact data. The reference to search_jobs and the shared-link example distinguish it from the list-oriented sibling, though the title 'Einzelnes Gesuch' already carries most of this.

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 one concrete usage scenario (resolving a job from a shared link like …/#gesuch=12), which implies when to reach for it, but never states when to prefer search_jobs instead or what to do when the id is unknown. Usage is inferable rather than prescribed.

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