BWA anfordern

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

Annotations declare non-read-only, destructive, non-idempotent, open-world; the description goes well beyond them by explaining the async lifecycle, the exact error codes for pending and duplicate calls, the replacement of the prior analysis of the same type (which explains destruktivHint), and that booking data itself is untouched and the report is regenerable.

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?

Six sentences, but the core action is front-loaded and each additional sentence carries operational value (polling contract, error codes, sibling disambiguation, regeneration semantics). Dense but not padded; a slightly tighter grouping of the error-code facts would be ideal.

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, return values need not be re-explained, and the description covers what matters for correct invocation: async behavior, the polling handoff, failure codes, side effects on existing reports, and the fact that underlying booking data is unchanged.

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 100% and the schema already documents both date fields in detail (format, inclusive endpoints, empty-string rejection), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format information beyond what the schema provides.

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 (anstoßen/generate) plus resource (BWA for a period) and specifies what it returns (id_by_customer). It explicitly distinguishes itself from bb_reports_get_bwa (the retrieval step) and bb_reports_create_sums (the file-capable sibling), so an agent can route correctly without opening any schema.

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?

Describes the full async workflow: this call triggers generation, the result must be polled with bb_reports_get_bwa using report_id_by_customer, polling returns error_code 8 until done, and a premature second call fails with error_code 12. It also names the alternative (bb_reports_create_sums) for file requests, leaving nothing to inference.

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