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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds that results appear in 'items' and contain the full text plus referenced ICD-, OPS-, and DRG codes, which is helpful context, though it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as sorting or error behavior.

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 two concise sentences. The first states the core purpose, and the second adds useful output information without wasted words.

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 straightforward search tool with a fully documented input schema, safety annotations, and an existing output schema, the description is complete enough. It explains what is searched, what the query can contain, and what the results include, leaving no critical gap for correct invocation.

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 'query', 'year', and 'limit' adequately. The description's mention of 'nach Nummer oder Text' reinforces the query parameter but does not add meaningful detail 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 resource ('Kodierempfehlungen der SEG-4 der MDK-Gemeinschaft'), and explains that search can be by number or text. This clearly distinguishes the search tool from the sibling seg4kde_get, which presumably retrieves a single item.

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 makes the intended use clear: search the SEG-4 recommendations by number or free-text keyword. It does not explicitly name an alternative such as seg4kde_get for exact retrieval, but the get/search sibling pattern and the phrase 'nach Nummer oder Text' provide sufficient context.

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