unemployment_benefit_duration

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and closed-world behavior, so safety is covered. The description's only added behavioral signal is the statutory basis (§ 147 SGB III), implying a deterministic, rule-based estimate rather than a lookup of the user's personal claim; it says nothing about whether results are binding, which claim prerequisites apply, or that it is an approximation only.

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 sentence with zero filler; the verb, resource and legal basis come first. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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. However, for a statutory-benefit calculation tool, the description omits useful framing: that it applies § 147 thresholds, that inputs are insurance months, and that the result is an estimate rather than an entitlement decision. Adequate but thin.

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?

All three parameters are documented in the schema at 100% coverage, including the Rahmenfrist meaning of months_insured_last_30_months, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (e.g., how age interacts with the raised duration thresholds under § 147), leaving it at the baseline 3.

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 specific verb ('Estimate') and a specific resource ('how long Arbeitslosengeld is paid'), plus the governing statute (§ 147 SGB III), which makes the tool's subject matter unambiguous among a large set of German employment-agency siblings. It does not explicitly contrast itself with neighboring tools like 'rules' or 'meineba_leistungen', so it stops short of a 5.

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 'rules' or 'meineba_leistungen'. The only implicit cue is that the tool answers duration questions about Arbeitslosengeld.

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