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

Annotations already declare the operation read-only and idempotent, and the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: results are delivered in 'focus' and include Bewertungsrelationen, Verweildauergrenzen, Pflegeerlös, Verlegungs-/Wiederaufnahmekennzeichen, full footnotes, and Zusatzentgelte. It also discloses the null-code fallback to the MDC level. No contradiction with 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?

Two sentences that are front-loaded with the main action and resource. The long enumeraton is dense but each element describes useful return content, so no sentence or phrase is wasted.

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 present and read-only/idempotent annotations, the description is complete for the agent's decision: it states what data the tool returns, how to invoke the no-code mode, and what domain it covers. The optional year and code details are already fully documented in the schema.

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 the baseline is 3. The description's remark that calling without a code returns the top level mirrors the schema's instruction 'Leer lassen für die oberste Ebene' and adds no new parameter semantics or format details beyond it.

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 clear, specific verb ('Liefert') with a precise object (all catalog data for a DRG) and enumerates the actual data categories returned. It also clearly explains the no-code behavior (returns the MDC top level), which helps distinguish it from a search tool.

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?

It gives clear call contexts: with a DRG code to get detailed catalog data, or without a code to get the top-level MDC view. However, it does not explicitly name the sibling 'drg_search' or describe when to prefer that search tool, so it falls just short of full alternative routing.

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