Dienstleister

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The only added context is that these are providers already created in the system; nothing is said about ordering, completeness of the result set, or empty results, and an output schema already handles return values.

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?

One short sentence with no waste, though it is a sentence fragment lacking a leading verb, which slightly weakens front-loading. Nothing needs to be cut, but nothing is prioritized either.

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 read-only list with an output schema and safe annotations, little prose is needed, so the short description is borderline acceptable. It still omits whether the list is complete or paginated and how it relates to the invoice-related siblings.

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 the baseline applies; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The schema is fully specified and requires no compensating text.

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 identifies the resource — providers/utility companies that are the invoice issuers, restricted to those configured in NebenkostenFix — but it is a bare noun phrase with no verb, so it only implicitly conveys 'list'. It does not differentiate this tool from the many sibling list_* tools beyond the entity name.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as list_invoices or list_properties, and no statement about prerequisites or exclusions. An agent must infer the usage context purely from the tool name.

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