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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: what the result rows contain (Nummer, Legende, Punktzahl, drei Gebührenstufen) and the comma-list semantic that returns exactly the listed numbers. It stops short of describing ordering or pagination behavior.

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 front-loaded sentences with no preamble; the core purpose leads and the return format and multi-number behavior follow. The four inline query examples are slightly heavy but do real work illustrating the search syntax.

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, the description need not detail return structures, and it already summarizes them. Combined with full schema coverage and read-only annotations, an agent has enough to call the tool correctly; only sibling differentiation from goae_lookup 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: that an exact comma-separated number list ('1, 5, 250') is resolved to precisely those entries rather than matched fuzzily. The limit parameter is left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable given its existing description.

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 states a specific verb (Sucht/durchsuchen) and resource (Gebührenverzeichnis der GOÄ) plus the two search axes: Nummer or Worte der Leistungslegende. It is immediately clear what the tool returns. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling goae_lookup, which an agent could easily confuse with a search-by-number call.

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?

Usage is only implied through example queries ('Beratung', 'Sonographie Abdomen') and the comma-list hint. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over goae_lookup or goae_calculate, nor any stated exclusions, so the agent must infer routing.

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