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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the call is free and that the result is intended to be forwarded to the human, which is real added context. It says nothing about read-only nature explicitly, output format, or any limits, leaving modest 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by the free-to-call note. Filler is minimal; the '(und wann nicht)' parenthetical adds meaning rather than waste.

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 zero-parameter informational tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what content comes back and how an agent should use it. Nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing, though return formatting details are absent.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed.

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 the resource clearly: pricing, inclusions, and value assessment for DutyKit. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tools (which cover catalog status, obligations, invoice/VAT/ad checks) by being the commercial/offer information source. The only weakness is that the name 'angebot' alone is ambiguous (quote vs. offer info), and the verb is left implicit.

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 context for when to use it — as a decision basis to relay to the human behind the agent, including when it is and is not worthwhile. However, it names no alternatives and gives no explicit when-not-to-call guidance, so routing between it and siblings is left to inference.

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