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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses a key behavioral invariant: 'Noch nicht erschienene Folgen werden nie ausgegeben' and the default behavior of returning newest episodes without a query. These details are not implied by the annotations and meaningfully shape invocation and interpretation of 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?

The description is well-structured with Args, Returns, and Beispiele sections, and the primary action is front-loaded. However, it includes some redundant background about the podcast's production (KI-Stimmen, redaktionell verantwortet) and repeats schema parameter descriptions, so it is slightly less concise than it could be.

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 read-only search tool with five optional parameters, full schema descriptions, and an output schema, the description covers invocation behavior, examples, return shape, and explicit routing to a sibling tool. Nothing an agent needs to select and call this tool 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters; the description's Args section largely duplicates this. It adds only marginal context through examples, such as mapping 'Gibt es eine Folge ueber Kreatin?' to query='Kreatin', but no new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Sucht in den veroeffentlichten Folgen des Podcasts Biohacking Kompakt', clearly identifying it as a search tool over podcast episodes. It also explicitly differentiates from a sibling by stating 'Nicht benutzen fuer: den Sachstand zu einem Thema (dafuer bk_get_topic)'.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: without a query it returns the newest episodes, and gives three representative examples mapping natural-language requests to parameters. It also states when not to use the tool and names the alternative (bk_get_topic), satisfying the when/when-not/alternatives criterion.

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