meineba_antraege

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds conceptual value by indicating the response is a status/pending overview, but says nothing about return format, ordering, or how 'action expected' is represented. With annotations carrying the behavioral burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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 compact sentences with the resource front-loaded and the useful scoping phrase ('what is pending and whether action is expected') carried in the same breath. No filler, though the parenthetical German label is redundant with the tool name.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations detail, so the description carries the return-value burden; it gestures at the content (pending status, action expectation) but does not describe the shape of the response. Adequate for a simple read-only overview tool, but not fully complete.

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 0% and the description does not mention the single 'limit' parameter at all. The schema's own default (50) and bounds (1-200) make the parameter's meaning somewhat inferable, but the description contributes no semantic detail to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 names a specific resource ('Status of the user's applications (Antragsübersicht)') and adds scope ('what is pending and whether action is expected'). An agent can tell what it returns, though it never distinguishes itself from the singular sibling meineba_antrag or from meineba_leistungen/meineba_status.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no reference to the many similar siblings (meineba_antrag, meineba_status, meineba_leistungen). The purpose is implied by 'Antragsübersicht' but the agent is left to infer when this tool should be chosen over its near-duplicates.

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