elster_form_review

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: state-machine behavior (returns to edit mode in the same call), safety guarantees ("Absenden" stays refused, never transmits), and accepted-command constraints (only EINGABE/PRUEFEN while on the overview). It even discloses the return shape, which is far beyond what any structured field provides.

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?

Purpose and the pre-submit context are front-loaded, and the dense sentence still avoids filler. It is lengthy and information-packed rather than trimmed, but every clause adds a distinct behavioral fact.

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 exists, and the description compensates by describing the returned structure as sections of rows with (Zeile, label, value, Kennzahl, source). Combined with the conditional flow and safety constraints, an agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret this 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline there is nothing to document; the schema is empty and closed. No parameter meaning is needed or missing.

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 composite action: runs "Prüfen", then conditionally reads ELSTER's "Formular absenden" overview, exposing exactly what would be transmitted. This clearly separates it from the submission tools in the sibling set (e.g. elster_form_press) by declaring it never transmits, so an agent can tell its role apart 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?

Gives clear context: this is the final check performed before the user submits, and the overview read is gated on "Prüfen" being clean. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool (e.g. elster_form_check) or spell out when to prefer that instead, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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