proof_of_applications

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, and the description explains exactly why: the tool returns the document but may additionally write it to a file, which is a side effect beyond the read-only baseline. It does not mention any eServices authentication/upload prerequisites, but with annotations already covering the safety profile this is a meaningful addition.

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 sentences, no filler, and the core action plus the deliverable are front-loaded before the optional file-write detail.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers purpose, period, and the optional file output. It leaves the format choice and any eServices prerequisite implicit, but the essential calling information is 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 coverage is 75%, with since/until already documented with examples and output_path described in the schema. The description restates the period and the optional file write but adds no syntax or semantics beyond the schema, and it never mentions the format enum (markdown/csv), so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb (Generate) and a precise, domain-specific resource ('Nachweis der Eigenbemühungen' / list of applications) scoped to a period, and explains the intent (submission in eServices). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_applications, which merely enumerate entries rather than produce the official proof document.

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 gives clear usage context: generate the proof when it needs to be handed in or uploaded in the eServices. It does not, however, state exclusions or name the alternative tool (list_applications) for merely browsing applications, so the routing guidance is good but not complete.

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