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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses important behavior: the registration appears only after operator review, name/location/services become public, contact details must stay in contact, and trader_info is publicly displayed. It also explains conditional display of “Pflegekasse möglich” and the need for explicit rule confirmation, which is valuable operational context.

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 dense but front-loaded: purpose and adult-only restriction come first, followed by review/publicness constraints and then conditional requirements. Despite being a single German paragraph, every sentence carries relevant registration constraints and there is no 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 11-parameter registration tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential workflow: adult-only registration, operator review, public versus protected fields, commercial versus private classification, trader_info obligations, and Pflegekasse conditions. The remaining schema-level details, such as consent, are already fully documented in the schema.

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 100%, so the schema already defines all parameters in detail. The description still adds useful cross-parameter semantics, especially which fields become public, where contact data belongs, and how is_trader, trader_info, pflegekasse, and pflegekasse_regeln interact.

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 action and resource: registering as a provider, with the key restriction that only adults may register. It is clearly distinct in practice from sibling tools such as contact_provider, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or draw that contrast.

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 clear usage context: use this to register a provider, only for adults, ask beforehand whether the user is commercial or private, and apply trader_info or Pflegekasse rules conditionally. It does not explicitly state when to use a sibling tool instead, so it falls short of full alternative-routing guidance.

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