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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses regulatory deadlines and legal articles, but omits behavioral traits such as whether the tool submits the report to BaFin, whether it creates a record, prerequisites, or side effects. The word 'Generate' implies creation but is not elaborated.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the main purpose and key deadlines, though it is terse.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (12 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It provides the regulatory context and deadlines but does not cover the full data required for the report or the submission workflow.

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 description coverage is only 17%, and the description does not explain any parameters except possibly report_type through 'initial/intermediate/final'. The 12 parameters remain largely undocumented, and the description does not compensate for the low coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's function: generating an ITS 2024/1772 incident report for BaFin, with specific report types (initial/intermediate/final). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_report or annual_report by focusing on incident-specific reporting.

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?

The description provides implied usage via deadlines (4h/72h/30d) for initial/intermediate/final reports, but does not explicitly explain when to choose this tool over alternatives like get_report or approve_report. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.

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