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

The annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds behavioral value by disclosing that results appear in 'items' and already contain the full text of the guideline, which saves the agent from making an unnecessary follow-up call.

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 concise sentences: the first explains what the tool does, and the second gives the key output behavior. Information is front-loaded and there is no filler or repetition.

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?

The description, annotations, and fully documented schema together give an agent enough to select and invoke the tool correctly. It is only missing an explicit recommendation for when to use dkr_get for exact retrieval and some edge-case behavior such as empty result sets.

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 query, year, and limit are already documented with defaults, bounds, and examples. The description only reinforces that search can be by number or text and does not add substantial parameter-level 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 names a specific action ('Durchsucht'), a clear resource ('Deutschen Kodierrichtlinien (DKR)'), and the search scope ('nach Nummer oder Text'). It is not a tautology, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling dkr_get, so the get/search differentiation remains implicit.

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 clearly implies that this is the DKR search tool, which is useful context. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over dkr_get or other related search tools, and it does not state any when-not-to-use or alternatives.

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