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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly and idempotent. The description adds useful behavioral context: the output includes the conditions into which the features are decomposed, and the no-code call returns all codes of the year with published features. There is 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, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by the no-code variant. Every clause adds value; no filler or redundant wording.

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 lookup with two optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers the core behavior and the edge mode of omitting opsCode. It could be more explicit about invalid code/year handling, but that is minor given the schema and provided output 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%: both year and opsCode already have explicit descriptions incluing normalization and null behavior. The description mainly restates the null behavior for opsCode and adds no new param-level semantics beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the verb ('Liefert') and the exact resource: OPS-Strukturmerkmale checked by the Medizinische Dienst, tied to a specific catalog. This is unique among the sibling tools, making it easy for an agent to distinguish from other get/search operations.

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 explains both invocation modes: with an opsCode it returns the structure features for that code; without one it returns all published codes of the year. It does not explicitly compare against sibling tools, but the usage context is clear and no exclusions are needed.

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