frist berechnen

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: it returns the calculation as text (important since there is no output schema), defaults land to the map setting, and disclaims any normative decision. It stops short of describing edge-case handling.

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 tight sentences: what it computes, what it returns, what it deliberately does not decide. No filler, and the scope-limiting clause is positioned last where it is most useful.

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 correctly covers the return type (text). For a 6-parameter calculator it is nearly complete, though it does not describe output format details or behavior on invalid land/date inputs.

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 67%, so most parameters are self-documented; the description adds meaning by tying land to nationwide holidays and by invoking §§ 187/188/193, which is exactly the legal logic that governs ereignisfrist and werktagsregel. It adds nothing for menge/einheit, but those are self-evident counting inputs.

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 ("Fristende ... berechnen") and grounds it in concrete law (§§ 187, 188, 193 BGB) plus the holiday-of-state qualifier. Explicitly carve-outs its scope with "Entscheidet nicht, welche Frist gilt", which cleanly separates it from siblings like frist_setzen and frist_eintragen.

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 closing sentence tells the agent what this tool will not do — decide which deadline applies — which implicitly routes that question elsewhere. However, it never names an alternative sibling or states prerequisites (e.g. that start/menge/einheit must already be known), so guidance is contextual rather than explicit.

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