log_correspondence

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), but the description adds a genuine side effect beyond them: an incoming Bescheid automatically triggers Widerspruch deadline calculation and tracking. That is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent needs; other side effects (e.g., task creation) are only visible via the schema.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by the key behavioral caveat. No filler; every clause 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a 13-parameter logging tool the description conveys purpose and the main side effect, though it says nothing about the numerous optional fields (channel, file_path, reference, etc.) beyond what the schema already covers.

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 69%, so most parameters are already documented. The description only implicitly ties 'Bescheid' to the deadline behavior, adding no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a clear verb+resource ('Record a letter, decision, e-mail, call or meeting'), so an agent understands this creates a correspondence entry. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like list_correspondence or update_correspondence, so the 'record/create' intent is implied rather than contrasted.

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 context is only implied – 'Record' suggests a create operation and the second sentence hints at when deadline tracking matters (incoming Bescheid). There are no explicit when-to-use/when-not statements or references to the neighboring update_correspondence / list_correspondence tools.

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