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

Annotations already signal read-only and idempotent behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral details: the result appears in 'focus', includes all quality criteria and sub-requirements, is grouped by requirement area, and resolves cross-references in both directions. No contradiction with 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?

Three compact sentences, each earning its place: core deliverable, cross-references resolution, and no-code behavior. The description is front-loaded with the primary verb and resource, with no filler or repetition.

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, idempotent getter with two optional parameters and an existing output schema, the description plus schema covers exact-code retrieval, catalog fallback, year selection, and result organization. There is no need for it to explain return values since an output schema is present.

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 code and year parameters are already well documented, including the accepted code forms and default-year behavior. The description only reinforces the null-code fallback, which adds little beyond what the schema already states.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: it delivers a Leistungsgruppe nach § 135e SGB V, including quality criteria and sub-requirements, organized by requirement area. It also clarifies the no-code fallback, which helps distinguish this exact-retrieval tool from the sibling lg_search, though it never explicitly names that sibling.

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 gives clear context for when to leave the code empty: 'Ohne Kode aufgerufen liefert die Funktion die oberste Gliederungsebene.' However, it does not state when to prefer lg_get over lg_search or give any exclusions/alternatives for non-exact lookups, leaving the routing to inference.

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