crosswalk

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

Annotations already declare idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive, and not read-only behavior. The description adds the useful multi-hop capability but does not explain what the non-read-only/open-world behavior entails, such as external lookup, caching, authentication, or rate limits.

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 filler. It packs the verb, resource, supported systems, and multi-stage capability efficiently.

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 an output schema present and annotations covering safety-related behavior, the description supplies the essential systems and multi-stage scope. It is nearly complete, though it could clarify usage conditions for conversion workflows.

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 75%, and the schema itself documents the code formats and the von/nach system enums. The description only restates the supported systems and does not add parameter-level meaning beyond that baseline.

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 uses a specific verb, 'Übersetzt', and a clear resource, 'Berufscodes', then enumerates the supported systems. It also notes multi-stage translation, making the tool's purpose distinct from the search/get siblings.

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 implies usage for occupational-code conversion and mentions multi-step translations, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The guidance is therefore only implied.

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