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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world). The description adds substantive interpretive context the annotations cannot: the axes measure knowledge state rather than substance, that high human evidence with direction 'negative' is not 'bad', and the meaning of the hype-distance scale. That is real added value beyond structured fields.

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?

Purpose and examples are front-loaded, and the axis/hype-distance semantics are compactly explained in two short sentences. It is slightly dense in the closing lines but every sentence carries information an agent needs to interpret the result.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still previews the returned fields and the side-by-side table, and explains how to read the axes. Combined with full schema coverage and annotations, nothing an agent needs to call or interpret this tool 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both ids and response_format (including the markdown/json enum). The description only restates the id source and duplicates the schema example, adding little beyond it – 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 (side-by-side comparison) and resource (two to four BK-score topics), and enumerates the concrete output (label, all axes, direction, reasoning, link, comparison table). It also names the sibling scenario it is not for (editorial comparison pages → bk_search_inhalte), so an agent can route correctly without opening other schemas.

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?

Explicitly routes the editorially-written comparison case to bk_search_inhalte with art='vergleich', and implies ids are sourced from bk_search_topics. This is clear conditional guidance, though it stops short of a fully explicit 'use this when / not when' framing.

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