Explain a DATEV EXTF finding code

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

Annotations already cover the read-only and closed-world aspects. The description adds useful behavioral context: it returns an explanation plus fix instructions and clarifies how placeholders in messages map to values from the specific finding.

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 focused sentences with no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded, and the placeholder clarification earns its place.

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?

With a complete schema, an output schema, and annotations, the description provides everything needed: what the tool does, how the code values appear in output, and language support via the lang parameter. Nothing critical is missing.

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%, with both parameters already described and full enums provided. The description adds only illustrative examples and placeholder semantics, which is helpful but does not substantially extend the schema's parameter documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Explain'), names the exact resource ('a validate_datev_extf finding code'), and clarifies the action with examples and fix guidance. It clearly distinguishes this tool from validation and writing operations.

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 makes it clear this tool is for interpreting findings produced by validate_datev_extf, which implies post-validation usage. It does not explicitly list alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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