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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations by specifying that results are returned in 'items' and include DDD and associated ICD codes. It does not go into detail about pagination or edge cases, but the core search behavior is transparent.

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 a single compact sentence that leads with the main action and immediately follows with the result format. There is no filler, repetition, or extraneous detail; every clause contributes useful information.

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, the description is complete enough: it names the resource, search inputs, and the key fields in the result. The input schema fully documents parameters, annotations cover safety and idempotency, and an output schema exists, so the agent has sufficient context 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 description does not need to re-explain the parameters. It does reinforce that 'query' can be an ATC code or substance name, but this adds little beyond the schema. The description adds no new semantic detail for 'year' or 'limit', so baseline 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 states a specific verb ('Durchsucht'), a clear resource ('amtliche ATC-Klassifikation'), and the search criteria ('nach Kode oder Wirkstoff'). It also indicates the result shape ('Treffer stehen in items'), which separates it from a simple exact-code retrieval tool like atc_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 makes the general intent clear: use this tool to search the ATC classification by code or substance. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer atc_get over atc_search, nor does it state any exclusions. The usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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