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

Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent behavior, so the description need not restate safety. It adds useful output semantics ('items' with amount, origin, and counts of triggering OPS/ICD codes), but it does not describe matching behavior, edge cases, or pagination. Thus it provides some additional context but not extensive behavioral transparency.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core search action and query modes, and then gives the relevant result shape. No filler, redundancy, or unnecessary detail.

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 full schema coverage and an output schema, the description is generally sufficient: it covers searchable inputs and the key result item fields. It lacks explicit sibling routing and some behavioral details, but these are not critical for invoking 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 parameters are already fully documented (query, year, limit). The description repeats the query semantics with examples but adds no information about year or limit beyond the schema. This fits the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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') with a clear resource ('Zusatzentgelte-Katalog') and defines the search target ('Kode oder Leistungsbeschreibung'). It clearly distinguishes this search tool from sibling get-tools like ze_get and from searches in other catalogs (DRG, ICD, OPS).

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 implies usage for code or text-based searching of the ZE catalog, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over ze_get or any other sibling. There are no explicit when-not-to-use conditions or alternative tool references.

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