Fill Debeka Credentials

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

Annotations already cover read-only vs. mutating behavior and idempotency. The description adds useful behavioral context: it operates on the already-open form, fills credential fields, and returns a success message or error details. This is sufficient for the agent to predict the tool's effect.

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?

The description is well-structured: purpose sentence, prerequisite, Args list, Returns note, and a concrete example. Every section earns its place and the most important usage constraint is front-loaded.

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 tool with 5 simple parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description is complete: it states what the tool does, the required precondition, all parameter semantics through schema plus example, and the return behavior.

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%, so the schema already documents every parameter. The description repeats the param meanings and adds a concrete example plus an 'optional' marker for telefon, but does not add substantial new semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Fills in all personal data fields on the Debeka Leistungsauftrag form.' It clearly separates this tool from siblings like debeka_submit, debeka_upload_documents, and debeka_screenshot by focusing on credential/personal-data entry.

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?

The description explicitly instructs the agent to call debeka_open_page first, which establishes the required ordering and context. It does not enumerate alternatives or exclusions, but the 'open Debeka form' prerequisite and the tool's specific fill role are enough to guide usage.

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