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

The annotations already convey that the operation is read-only, idempotent, and closed-world, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds the useful detail that hits are returned in 'items', but with an output schema present this is largely redundant and does not disclose deeper behavior such as pagination or matching semantics.

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 short, purposeful sentences: the first states the core search scope, the second adds a valuable use case, and the third points to where results live. There is 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 search tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description carries the right amount of information. It names the resource, the searchable dimensions, a distinguishing use case, and the result container, so an agent has enough to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 already documents the parameters and their meanings. The description broadly clarifies what a query can target (number, name, quality-criteria wording), but it does not add meaningful syntax or format details 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 states a specific verb ('Durchsucht'), a clearly defined resource ('Leistungsgruppen nach § 135e SGB V'), and the exact searchable fields (Nummmer, Bezeichnung, Wortlaut der Qualitätskriterien). It also adds a distinct reverse-lookup use case, which helps distinguish it from a plain get-by-id tool like lg_get.

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 use the tool, including the non-obvious reverse question it can answer. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to lg_get for exact single-group lookups, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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