elster_est_start

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the session lifecycle, that it runs Prüfung, waits 30 minutes for review, and emphatically never submits. It also mentions failing loudly when a requested takeover submission is unavailable. It omits auth requirements, what happens after the 30-minute window, or how to cancel a lingering session.

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 two tightly constructed sentences front-loading purpose, then workflow and the critical 'NEVER submits' constraint. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers the session-start workflow, the 30-minute review window, and the never-submit guarantee. It leaves some gaps around post-timeout behavior and how to check or cancel the session, but the core information an agent needs to call the tool correctly is present.

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 67%, with the required 'year' parameter having no description in either the schema or the tool description. The description restates what the schema already says about the data parameter (input id/name hints) and adds little for takeover. It does not compensate for the undocumented year parameter.

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 ('Starts an ESt 1 A form-prep session'), and names the form type (ESt 1 A) which distinguishes it from sibling start tools like elster_ustva_start and elster_eur_start. An agent can identify the correct tool without opening schemas.

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 clearly outlines the workflow context (opens form, fills basics, runs Prüfung, waits 30 min for portal review) and the alternative for listing available Datenübernahme submissions within a parameter. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other form-preparation or session tools, nor does it set exclusions.

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