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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the search's safety profile is known. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining that hits appear under 'items' with partition, leading Bewertungsrelation, mean length of stay, and boundary stays, and that drg_get covers the complete values.

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 first states purpose and search keys, the second states result contents and the alternative for full data. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only search tool with a full output schema and complete parameter documentation, the description covers scope, result shape, and the relevant alternative drg_get. An agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly without missing critical context.

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 all three parameters (query, year, limit) already documented including examples and defaults. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline score 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 starts with a concrete verb 'Durchsucht' and identifies the exact resource, the G-DRG Fallpauschalenkatalog, including the search keys (Kode or Bezeichnung). It also distinguishes the tool from drg_get by stating that complete appendix values are provided there.

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 names drg_get as the alternative when full values of all appendices are needed, giving an agent a clear routing cue. It does not explicitly exclude the other catalog-search siblings, but the resource-specific naming and search-versus-get distinction make the intended context clear.

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