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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return content (the listed sections) but does not mention any side effects, error handling, authentication requirements, or rate limits. As a read operation, it is implicitly non-destructive, but this is not stated explicitly. The description adds some context about what is returned but lacks behavioral depth.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main purpose and lists the content sections, followed by the parameter guidance. Every word is functional; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides enough to call it correctly: it states what the tool does, what parameter to supply, and gives an example. It does not cover error scenarios or prerequisites, but for a read operation this is acceptable. The absence of an output schema is not a gap since the content is described.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing a concrete example slug ('preis-anker-ohne-zittern') and reiterating that a full URL is also acceptable, which reinforces the schema's parameter description. This goes slightly beyond the schema's minimal definition, earning a 4.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Liefert den kompletten Inhalt eines Lernmoduls' (delivers the complete content of a learning module), listing the specific sections (Kernpunkte, Hauptteil, Praxis-Schritte, typische Fehler, FAQ). The verb 'lesen' and the resource 'Lernmodul' are unambiguous, and the tool is distinct from its siblings (search, overview, about) by its action of reading a full module.

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 the tool is used when you have a slug or URL and want the full content, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus lernmodule_suchen or lernmodule_uebersicht. It does not mention any exclusions or alternatives, leaving the selection to the agent's inference.

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