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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the content is orientation, not diagnosis ('sie ordnet ein, sie befundet nicht'), and it describes what each thema mode returns. It does not discuss pagination or result size, 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?

Reasonably long but front-loaded: purpose first, then the mode branches, then the alternative tool and the disclaimer. Every sentence carries information (markers, mode meanings, routing, caveat) rather than filler; slightly dense with the long marker list.

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 values need not be explained, and the description covers purpose, all parameter semantics, mode routing, the sibling alternative, and the non-diagnostic caveat. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly 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%, making 3 the baseline, but the description adds meaning over the schema: it maps the opaque enum slugs (entzuendung, naehrstoffe) to readable Baustellen, gives query examples ('ApoB', 'Insulin', 'Eisen'), and clarifies what nur_einsteiger and the thema modes select.

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 (Durchsucht) plus resource (Blutwerte-Seite des Longevity-Panels) and enumerates the concrete content returned (Marker mit Referenzbereich, Einheit, Baustelle). It also explicitly names the sibling used for the single-marker case (bk_get_blutwert), so an agent can distinguish it without opening either schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use branches: no query → overview, thema='panels' → Laborpakete, thema='regeln' → Messrhythmus/Vorbereitung, and routes single-marker deep-dives to bk_get_blutwert. This is the kind of routing an agent needs, with no alternatives left to inference.

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