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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful behavioral note that results are shallow (id, title, url) and that detail requires a follow-up fetch call, which shapes how an agent plans a multi-step query. It is slightly redundant with the output schema, which already documents the return shape.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the routing hints following. Every clause carries actionable information.

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 single-parameter read-only search with an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers purpose, return shape, and sibling routing. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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% and the single query parameter already carries an example, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no syntax, length, or matching-behavior detail (e.g. whether it is AND/OR, stemming, or German-language specific) beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Volltextsuche in den Stellenangeboten von StaatsJobs.com') and explicitly distinguishes itself from two siblings: fetch for details and search_jobs for filters. An agent can route correctly without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use-this and when-to-use-alternatives guidance: details go to fetch, structured filters (Ort, Tarif, Entgeltgruppe) go to search_jobs. The exclusion condition is concrete rather than implied.

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