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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: hits land in 'items' and already contain the full guideline text, telling the agent no follow-up get call is needed. It does not discuss ranking or how number vs. text matching behaves.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the search action, followed by applicability context and a return-value note. Every sentence carries information an agent cannot get from the structured fields.

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 an output schema, full annotation coverage and 100% schema coverage, the description needs only purpose and routing context, which it provides, plus the useful note that full text is embedded in results. The remaining gap is the unstated relationship to dkr_psych_get/dkr_search.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents query, year and limit. The description only restates the query semantics ("nach Nummer oder Text") already present in the schema and adds nothing about year defaults or limit behavior, so 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?

States a specific verb ("Durchsucht") and a precisely scoped resource (DKR-Psych, Psychiatrie/Psychosomatik) with the two search modes (Nummer oder Text). The scope implicitly separates it from dkr_search (general DKR) and dkr_psych_get, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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 PEPP/§ 17d KHG sentence explains domain applicability (when these rules apply instead of the DKR), not when to pick this tool over dkr_search or dkr_psych_get. Usage is only implied by the resource scope; there are no explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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