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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful non-obvious context: stopwords are ignored, each hit returns page/section/excerpt only, and regulated topics deliberately omit application/dosage/experience sections, which prevents the agent from misreading thin results.

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-loaded with purpose, then when-to-use with examples, then return shape, follow-up tool, and a caveat – a sensible priority order. The long parenthetical enumeration of page types and five example queries make it longer than strictly necessary, but nearly every sentence carries actionable information.

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 5-parameter search tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, this covers what the agent needs: scope, query construction, filtering, hit granularity, the companion retrieval tool, and the regulated-content caveat. Nothing material is left for the agent to infer.

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 a 3 is the baseline and the schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds real meaning beyond it by noting that Füllwörter are ignored in the query (relevant to how an agent phrases searches) and glosses the art enum values, though it repeats limit/default values already in the schema.

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 (Volltextsuche) and resource (ALLE Seiten von biohackingkompakt.de) and enumerates the covered content types (Themenseiten, Tipps, Vergleiche, Fragen & Beschwerden, Glossar, Podcast-Folgen). The scope word 'ALLE' implicitly distinguishes it from the narrower siblings bk_search_blutwerte, bk_search_studien, bk_search_podcast and bk_search_topics.

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 a clear when-to-use rule ('konkrete Fragen im Wortlaut, deren Antwort im Fliesstext steht') backed by five sample queries, and names the follow-up tool bk_get_seite for retrieving full sections/pages. What it lacks is an explicit exclusion routing the agent to the specialized sibling searches (Blutwerte, Studien, Podcast) when those are the better fit.

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