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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, which cover the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations: it clarifies the data source (official ATC classification with defined daily doses) and the result shape (items with DDD and associated ICD codes). No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 two sentences with no filler. The action and resource are front-loaded, and both sentences contribute either scope or result-shape 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 read-only search tool with 3 fully documented parameters and an output schema, the description covers the core contract: what is searched, what can be queried, and where results appear. It does not provide explicit routing among the 24 sibling tools, but that gap is captured in the usage guidelines score rather than a fundamental completeness issue.

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%, and the schema already documents query, year, and limit with examples. The tool description mostly restates that the query can be a code or active ingredient, adding little beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 uses a concrete verb ('Durchsucht') and a specific resource ('amtliche ATC-Klassifikation mit definierten Tagesdosen'), and clearly states the search keys ('nach Kode oder Wirkstoff'). It clearly identifies a search function, but it does not explicitly contrast it with the sibling atc_get tool, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

The description implies when the tool should be used: when looking up ATC codes or active ingredients within the official classification. However, it does not state when to prefer this over atc_get or other classification searches, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternative tools.

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