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

Adds substantial behavior beyond annotations: it requires the user to be signed in, is asynchronous ('returns a job_id immediately', verdict collected via bewertung_abholen), and constrains input to the user's own text. These are exactly the operational facts the non-destructive/readOnly=false annotations cannot 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?

A single dense block that is well ordered: usage condition with scope, required auth, async/job_id behavior and retrieval tool, then the exclusion list. Every sentence carries new information and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description still covers the async job flow, auth prerequisite, input constraints and the negative cases. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly 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 100%, so the exam enum, part, task, is_revision and feedback_language are already documented. The description still adds meaning the schema lacks, notably the ~50–900 word constraint on 'text' (the schema only bounds characters) and the 'only the user's own text' restriction.

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 and resource (evaluate a self-written German text the way an examiner would) plus the exact exam family (TestDaF, DSH, Goethe C1, telc C1) and the outputs (level/grade, per-criterion level, marked passages, improvements). Easily distinguishes it from bewertung_abholen (collects the verdict) and pruefungsraster_nachschlagen.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('when the user wants a German text they wrote themselves... evaluated'), explicit word range, and an explicit negative list ('Not for: translations, grammar questions, exam tasks, phrase lists, texts the user did not write, or other languages'). It also names the follow-up sibling bewertung_abholen for retrieving the verdict.

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