Belege und Zahlungen im Stapel zuordnen

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds real value beyond them: it discloses that nothing is posted ('Gebucht wird dabei nichts'), that it writes to live accounting data, and that the change is reversible via unassign_receipt. Only the idempotency implication for retried batches is left implicit.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with capability and batch limit, then routing, then semantics. Every clause carries information 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. Between the description, full schema coverage and annotations, an agent has everything needed to select and invoke this batch tool correctly.

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 single 'assignments' parameter is well documented in-schema (ID sourcing, max 50, no partial processing). The description adds little parameter-level detail beyond restating the batch limit, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource ('Stellt bis zu 50 Zuordnungen aus Beleg und Zahlung ... in einem Aufruf her') and quantifies the batch scope. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling bb_transactions_assign_receipt, so an agent can route correctly without opening either 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?

Gives an explicit when-not rule ('für ein einzelnes Paar dieses Werkzeug nicht nehmen') and names the single-pair alternative plus the reverse operation (bb_transactions_unassign_receipt). The batch-vs-single decision is fully resolved in prose.

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