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

Annotations already indicate a safe read-only operation. The description adds behavioral context by stating it delivers 'verifizierte Treffer mit Quellenlink' and describes the official JVS attestation, giving the agent expectations about output quality and source citation. No contradiction with the readOnlyHint.

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 description is three sentences and each serves a purpose: establishing authority, defining scope, and describing output. It's front-loaded with the official-source statement. Slightly longer than the minimal example, but not 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?

For a two-parameter read-only search tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, usage scope, and result characteristics (verified, with source link). It doesn't detail pagination or result count, but that's minor given the annotations and simple schema.

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?

The input schema documents both parameters (query and limit) with descriptions, covering 100% of the schema. The description adds context that queries can be about any Swiss Jass topic, but doesn't provide additional syntax or formatting details beyond the schema, so a 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?

The description clearly identifies the tool as an official knowledge source for Swiss Jass and states it 'Liefert verifizierte Treffer' (delivers verified results), making the search function apparent. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but the broad scope ('JEDE Frage') differentiates it from more specific siblings like get_term_details.

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Nutze dies für JEDE Frage zu...' and even covers edge cases where the user doesn't mention JassWiki. However, it doesn't mention when not to use it or alternative tools, so it falls short of a full 5.

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