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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it does disclose that retrieval is semantic rather than keyword-based, which is genuinely useful context for query phrasing. It says nothing about result volume, ranking behavior, latency, or whether the corpus is read-only, leaving the mutation/return profile to inference.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose before the usage trigger, with essentially no filler. The topic enumeration is slightly listy but each item helps an agent decide whether to route here.

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 one-parameter, non-destructive lookup with no output schema, the description covers purpose, corpus scope, and when to invoke it. The remaining gap is the boundary with get_services and any hint about result shape, which is minor at this complexity.

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 100% and the single `query` parameter already carries language guidance and three worked examples, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds topical context about what queries will hit but no additional syntax, scope, or format guidance beyond the schema.

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 names a specific verb+resource pair ("Semantische Suche in der designare.at Knowledge Base") and enumerates the content domains covered (projects, blog articles, expertise). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_services, so an agent must infer the boundary rather than being told it.

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?

"Nutze dieses Tool wenn du Fragen über ... beantworten willst" gives a concrete, topic-level trigger list (designare.at, WordPress, SEO, GEO, KI-Sichtbarkeit), which is clear positive guidance. No exclusions or named alternatives are given, so the agent has no stated rule for when to prefer the sibling instead.

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