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

Beyond the readOnly and idempotent annotations, the description discloses valuable behavior: the structure of the response ('items' with year-over-year change and distance to the federal baseline, 'bund' with corridor), and the fallback when no state matches. This goes well beyond the structured 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: it states the purpose in the first sentence and adds only high-value behavioral details in the remaining sentences. No redundant or filler content.

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 search tool, the description, combined with the full schema coverage and readOnly/idempotent annotations, leaves no material gaps. The response format and the no-match behavior are explicitly covered.

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?

The input schema already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, including defaults and the ignored-limit behavior. The description adds query examples but no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb ('sucht') and a clear resource ('den Landesbasisfallwert eines Bundeslandes'), and identifies the search criteria (Name oder Kürzel) with concrete examples. This makes the tool's purpose immediately distinguishable from related lookup tools.

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 clearly states when this tool is appropriate: searching a German federal state's baseline value by name or abbreviation. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the use case is specific enough to guide selection.

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