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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it searches all passages, returns the best-matching text sections along with section identifier, relevance score, and link. This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies the tool's output behavior without contradicting them.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and output, followed by a clear usage guideline. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition of schema 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?

The description is complete for a search tool with two well-documented parameters. It explains the return format (section, hit value, link) despite no output schema, and provides usage guidance. The annotations cover safety and idempotency, so nothing essential 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%, meaning both parameters ('frage' and 'treffer') are fully described in the schema. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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 states the tool searches all passages of stalsoft.com for a question or keyword and returns the most relevant passages with section, hit value, and link. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by positioning itself as the first choice when uncertain which tool contains the answer.

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 explicitly gives usage context: 'Erste Wahl, wenn unklar ist, welches der übrigen Werkzeuge die Antwort enthält' (first choice when unclear which of the other tools contains the answer). This tells the agent when to use this tool and implies alternatives are the sibling tools, without needing to name them individually.

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