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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so safety is covered. The description adds non-obvious context: the evidence-level encoding (2/1/0) that qualifies every link and the caveat that a link is a mechanism rather than proven efficacy. It could still say more about result size or pagination, so not a full 5.

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?

Front-loads the resource, then a clean three-bullet breakdown of modes, then the evidence-scale note. The opening sentence enumerates many pathway names, which is somewhat verbose but serves as scope illustration rather than 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?

An output schema exists, so return formatting need not be explained. Combined with the mode semantics, evidence-level legend, and sibling cross-reference, an agent has everything needed to choose and invoke this tool correctly.

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 earns extra credit by mapping each parameter to a distinct behavioral mode (id = pathway view, thema_id = inverted topic view, absence = list), which is semantic meaning beyond the schema's field descriptions.

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?

Stated as a specific verb+resource ('Signalwege-Atlas abfragen') and explains the three distinct retrieval modes, so an agent knows exactly what the tool returns in each case. It also names the adjacent tool bk_get_topic that supplies the effect data this tool deliberately omits.

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 enumerates when to use each mode: no argument for a full list, id for one pathway with its topics, thema_id for the reverse lookup. It also draws the boundary against bk_get_topic by clarifying that links are mechanisms, not demonstrated human effects.

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