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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false. The description adds a useful caveat that the score axes mean something different from their names, and clarifies that no arguments are needed except possibly response_format. No contradiction with annotations.

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, front-loaded with purpose, then usage trigger, then args/returns. No wasted words.

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 simple read-only retrieval tool, it provides the content scope, the trigger, the argument expectations, and the return type. It also includes an important interpretation warning. There is no output schema, but the description covers what the agent needs.

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 has 0 parameters and 100% coverage, so baseline is 4. The description explicitly notes 'Args: keine (ausser response_format)', clarifying that no tool-specific parameters are expected, which is useful for agents.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it delivers the official citation guidelines (llms.txt) from Biohacking Kompakt, and details the content (BK score meaning, misunderstood axes, classification). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like podcast/topic search or score lists.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger: call once before first citing content. It doesn't name alternatives, but no sibling tool serves this purpose, so the context is clear. It lacks explicit 'when not to use', but that's acceptable for a unique tool.

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