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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the shape of the response (full text in 'focus', classification in 'parents', child sections in 'items') and the list fallback when no code is given.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler, with the return-structure detail first and the no-argument behavior second. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

With annotations, a full output schema, and 100% parameter coverage, the description only needs to orient the agent — which it does. The one gap is that it doesn't point to dkr_psych_search for discovering codes, which matters in a 40-tool catalogue.

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 'year' parameter already carries an unusually thorough explanation of the latest-version fallback. The description only reinforces the 'code' semantics via 'Ohne Nummer aufgerufen', adding nothing the schema doesn't already say, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource (retrieves a DKR-Psych guideline) and even enumerates the response slots ('focus', 'parents', 'items'), plus the no-code list mode. It never names the sibling dkr_psych_search, so the get-vs-search split is only inferable from the naming convention.

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 does state one concrete usage branch: calling without a number returns the guideline list. It gives no explicit routing to dkr_psych_search for finding a code, and no when-not-to-use guidance beyond that single clause.

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