kleinunternehmergrenze

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses almost nothing: it does not say whether the result is a numeric amount, a legal citation, or a structured object, nor whether multiple thresholds (e.g. prior years, EU small-business scheme) are involved. The only behavioral hint is the jurisdiction/year scoping implied by 'AT 2026'.

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?

It is five words with zero redundancy, so nothing is wasted, but it is a fragment rather than a structured sentence and is under-specified rather than concise in a useful way. There is no front-loaded statement of what the tool returns.

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?

The tool has no annotations and no output schema, so the description is the only place an agent can learn what comes back — and it says nothing about return shape, units, currency, or whether the 2026 threshold is a single figure. For a zero-parameter lookup whose entire value is its answer, that is a significant omission.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is empty at 100% coverage, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter-related gap exists.

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 is a German keyword string, not a verb+resource statement: it names the domain concept (Kleinunternehmergrenze), the tax type (Umsatzsteuer), the jurisdiction and the year (AT 2026). An agent can infer this is a lookup of the Austrian VAT small-business threshold, but the tool never states that it returns a value or what that value represents, so the purpose is only vague-inferable.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of any sibling. The siblings (feiertage, schulferien, svs_werte, svs_schaetzung) are all Austrian data-lookup tools, so the only differentiation here is the topic keyword itself, which the agent must decode without help.

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