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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond those annotations: each result identifies which column matched the query, helping the agent interpret hits. It does not cover pagination behavior, but limit and offset are documented in the schema.

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?

The content is well ordered, with the main search behavior first and follow-up actions after. However, the full German text is duplicated in English, which doubles the length without adding new information. It is still readable and front-loaded, but not as tight as it could be.

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, so the description should clarify the return shape; it partially does by saying the matching column is named per hit and that a mandantennummer is available for next steps. It lacks explicit guidance on exact result fields, pagination behavior beyond schema basics, and how this tool relates to sibling search/list tools such as mandant_list or address_search_company.

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 60%, and the key parameter 'query' has no schema-level description. The description compensates by explaining that query can match Mandantennummer, Name, Tags, or Sachbearbeiter. The remaining parameters (limit, offset, since) are already described in the schema, though 'reasoning' remains unexplained.

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 ('Sucht') and resource ('Mandanten') and enumerates the search criteria: client number, name, tags, or case handler. It also notes that each hit names the matching column, which makes the tool's behavior concrete and distinct from generic list or get tools like mandant_list and mandant_get.

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 implies when to use this tool—when you need to locate a Mandant by partial search criteria—and provides clear next-step routing by naming document_create, mandant_get, and letter_create_draft as follow-ups. It does not explicitly state exclusions or compare itself with alternatives like address_search_company, but the workflow context is clear.

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