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 what annotations cannot: the corpus is a fixed published set, answers come back as titles plus short answers plus links, and both German and English content is indexed. Rate limits and result ranking are unstated but minor for a read-only lookup.

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?

Two sentences, capability first, applicability second, with no filler. The topical enumeration is long but each item genuinely narrows the retrieval scope, so it earns its space; a slightly tighter list would be ideal.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by saying results are titles, short answers and links. Query semantics and corpus scope are covered; only result ordering and page-size behavior are left implicit, which is acceptable for a simple read tool.

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%, with query examples and an enum for language already documented in the schema. The description only restates the German/English duality, adding no new semantics such as how multi-word queries or the limit ceiling behave. 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?

States a specific verb (searches) and a precisely bounded resource (VEDUTUM's published articles, service pages, feature documentation) and even names the return content. That contrasts cleanly with the sibling set, which are all action/mutation tools on projects and models.

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?

"Use for questions about architectural visualisation" plus an explicit topic list (floor plan to 3D, rendering costs, IFC/CAD, sign-off, AI labelling) tells the agent when this tool is the right entry point. It stops short of naming a when-not or an alternative tool, so it is clear context rather than a full routing rule.

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