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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, covering safety. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it explains what the Alphabet contains and that each hit already includes the official title from the systematic index. This is useful for an agent deciding whether the returned data satisfies the user's request.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the action and resource, then the use case, then the result format. Every sentence earns its place, with no repetition of schema details or annotation properties.

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 tool has a fully documented 4-parameter schema, an output schema, and safety-relevant annotations, the description is complete. It explains the search scope, the input style, and the informational value of each hit, so an agent has everything needed to use the tool effectively.

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 all parameters clearly. The description adds general context about what sorts of query terms are appropriate ('klinischen und umgangssprachlichen Bezeichnungen'), but it does not add substantial per-parameter meaning 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') and a specific resource ('das Alphabetische Verzeichnis des OPS'), and explains that it maps clinical/colloquial procedure terms to official keys. This clearly distinguishes it from systematic-verzeichnis searches and from the sibling opsalpha_get lookup tool.

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 a clear usage context: it is the typical entry point when only the procedure text is known, not a code. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the use-case guidance is strong enough to route an agent appropriately among the sibling search tools.

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