meineba_antrag

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 that the response contains status, required actions and documents, which is useful return-content context, but it says nothing about permissions, data freshness, or output format.

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?

A single front-loaded fragment listing the resource and its returned aspects. No filler or redundancy.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description gives a partial picture of the return (three named fields) but omits how vorgangs_id and aue_version combine to identify the record and what else the response may contain. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 coverage is only 50%: aue_version is described ('aueVersion from meineba_antraege') but vorgangs_id has no description in either schema or prose. The description mentions no parameters at all, so it does not compensate for the undocumented ID or its relationship to aue_version.

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 resource ('one application') and enumerates the aspects returned (status, required actions, documents). The singular 'one application' implicitly contrasts with the plural sibling meineba_antraege, but no sibling is named explicitly, so the distinction is inferred rather than stated.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. The agent must infer from the name that this is the single-record counterpart to meineba_antraege, with nothing in the text confirming or excluding that.

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