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

Annotations already convey readOnly and idempotent behavior, lowering the bar for the description. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating that hits are returned in 'items' and that matching works on code or designation. 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 short sentences: the first delivers the core purpose and expands the acronym, the second states the response container. Every sentence earns its place and the description is front-loaded.

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 simple search tool with three fully documented parameters, read-only/idempotent annotations, and an output schema, the description is complete enough. The 'items' hint further reduces uncertainty about the result shape, and nothing essential is missing.

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%: query, year, and limit are all explained in the schema. The description mainly repeats the query semantics (code or designation) and adds no additional meaning for year or limit, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Durchsucht') and resource ('PEPP-Katalog'), and clarifies that searching works by code or designation. It is clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling pepp_get 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 intended usage is implied: search the PEPP catalog by code or description. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-to-use-an-alternative guidance, such as pointing to pepp_get for direct single-item retrieval.

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