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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, reducing the burden. The description adds behavioral value by explaining what the response contains (focus, parents, items) and what happens when no code is provided. It does not discuss not-found behavior, but this is a minor gap given the output schema and 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 two sentences with no filler. The core retrieval behavior is front-loaded, and the optional no-code case is stated efficiently.

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 read-only retrieval tool with optional parameters and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers the main behavior, default usage, and return semantics. The only notable gap is not explicitly pointing to dkr_search for free-text lookup scenarios.

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 both parameters are already documented with examples and default behavior. The description essentially reinforces the code parameter's default semantics ('ohne Nummer') without adding significant new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource: it retrieves a Kodierrichtlinie and returns its full text, parents, and items. It also defines the no-argument case as returning the top-level structure, which makes the tool's scope clear and distinguishes it from the sibling dkr_search.

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 explains when to call with a code versus without a code, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as dkr_search or state when not to use this tool. The usage is implied rather than directly contrasted with sibling tools.

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