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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying that hits appear in 'items' and include the full text of each guideline, which helps set expectations without contradicting the 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: two sentences with the action and search scope front-loaded, followed by a useful note about result contents. There is no filler, repetition of annotations, or unnecessary detail.

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 low-complexity search tool with three fully documented parameters and an output schema, the description covers search scope, query modes, and result shape. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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%, with clear descriptions and examples for query, year, and limit. The tool description repeats the query semantics ('Nummer oder Text') but adds no parameter detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 starts with the specific verb 'Durchsucht' and names the resource 'Deutschen Kodierrichtlinien (DKR)', stating clearly that search can be by number or text. This distinguishes it from sibling dkr_get and from the other classification-specific search 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 conveys that the tool is for searching DKR by number or free text and returns full guideline text. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to choose it over dkr_get when the exact identifier is unknown or text search is needed.

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