meineba_verlauf

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the taxonomy of event types, which is useful context, but says nothing about pagination flow (implied only by the 'before' param) or volume/rate behavior. Given annotations carry safety, a 3 fits.

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 tight sentence with zero waste, front-loading the resource and its contents. It is appropriately sized, though the parenthetical could be trimmed slightly.

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 list tool whose annotations cover the safety profile, this is close to adequate, but with three parameters at 33% schema coverage and no output schema, the agent still lacks pagination and filter semantics. The description should do more to be 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 only 33% (only 'before' is documented; 'limit' and 'search' are bare). The description adds no parameter meaning at all and does not compensate for the coverage gap, so the agent gets no guidance on what 'search' filters or what 'limit' bounds.

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 ('History of events in the user's account') and enumerates the event types it covers (applications, letters, decisions, documents). This is clear, but it never names or differentiates itself from the close sibling meineba_verlauf_eintrag, so an agent must infer the singular-vs-list distinction on its own.

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 mention of alternatives such as meineba_verlauf_eintrag for a single entry. The description only states what the tool is, leaving selection entirely to inference.

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