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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description does not need to restate safety behavior. It adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by stating that results appear in 'items' and that detail retrieval requires kh_get. 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, no wasted words, and the most important behavioral information is front-loaded: what is searched, by which criteria, where results appear, and how to get details.

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?

Given the output schema exists, the annotations cover read-only/idempotent behavior, and all parameters are fully described in the schema, the description is complete for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly. It also links to the relevant sibling for follow-up detail.

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 schema fully documents year, limit, and query. The description adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides for these parameters.

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 names a specific verb ('Durchsucht'), a specific resource ('Krankenhausverzeichnis'), and the search criteria (IK, Name, Ort). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling kh_get by stating that detailed address/contact information is 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?

It sets clear expectations for when to use kh_search versus kh_get: search returns matching list items, while detailed address and contact data come from kh_get for a single hospital. This gives an explicit alternative and the condition that selects it.

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