antrag_pruefen

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so 'Schreibt nichts, öffnet keinen Browser' largely restates structured data rather than adding new information. The description does add that the check is deterministic and enumerates the rule sets applied, but it says nothing about how findings or errors are surfaced to the caller.

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?

Two compact clauses, front-loaded with the action and the guarantee, with the rule list in a parenthetical. Dense but efficient; the long section-symbol enumeration is informative rather than 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?

For a validation tool with a free-form nested input and no output schema, the description leaves two critical gaps: the structure of the antrag object and the shape of the check result (pass/fail list, error codes, severity). With no output schema, the return behavior had to be described somewhere and is not.

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 0% and the single 'antrag' parameter is a free-form nested object with additionalProperties=true, so the schema conveys nothing about expected fields. The description compensates only indirectly by implying the checks operate on field lengths, postal code, IBAN and lawyer fee data, but never states what shape the antrag object must have.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Antrag deterministisch vorprüfen') and enumerates the concrete rule families checked (Feldlängen, Kataloge, PLZ, IBAN, doppelte Anwaltsvergütung, § 130d ZPO, § 288 BGB, Pflicht-Entscheidungen). That distinguishes it clearly from write-oriented siblings like portal_ausfuellen or ausfuellen_fortsetzen, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the word 'vorprüfen' suggests it should run before submitting via portal_ausfuellen, but the description never states when to call it, when not to, or which sibling to use instead for schema lookup (antrag_schema) or catalog lookups (kataloge_suchen).

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