elster_eur_start

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the critical behavior: it stops at Prüfung, attempts 'Speichern und Verlassen' so a draft survives, and explicitly never submits. That is strong safety-relevant disclosure, though it omits auth requirements and failure 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, led by the core purpose, then the mechanism, then the hard constraint. No filler and no repetition of schema content.

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?

No output schema and no annotations exist, so the description must orient the agent on a mutating setup tool. It covers the central action and the no-submit guarantee well; only the return value (e.g. session handle) and follow-up routing are left implicit.

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% and the schema already documents data (with the full field list) and takeover in depth. The description adds nothing about year, data, or takeover semantics, so the baseline 3 applies: the schema, not the description, does the heavy lifting.

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 (starts) and resource (an EÜR form-prep session), expanding the acronym and describing the exact workflow outcome: fills the form up to Prüfung, then saves the draft. This clearly separates it from parallel siblings like elster_ustva_start and elster_est_start, which target different form types.

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 its place in a workflow (start a session, become a surviving draft) and the 'NEVER submits' constraint bounds its role, but it names no explicit alternative or precondition, and never routes the agent to companion tools such as elster_form_set or elster_submissions_list. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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