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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile and closed-world behavior are covered. The description adds helpful output context (results in 'items') and points to kh_get for details, but does not describe pagination, sorting, or whether partial matches are supported. With these annotations, a middle score is appropriate.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does and ending with a routing pointer to kh_get. No filler, every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only search tool with a rich 100%-covered schema and an output schema, the description is largely complete. It even tells the agent where results land ('items') and where to get address/contact details. It could improve by noting that the search returns only summary data, but the pointer to kh_get already communicates this. Minor gap, not a major one.

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 each parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds some semantic value by restating the query field's options (IK, name, or place), but it does not go beyond the schema for year or limit. This matches the baseline of 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 states a clear verb ('Durchsucht') and the explicit resource ('Krankenhausverzeichnis'), and enumerates the three searchable fields (IK, name, or place). It also differentiates itself from kh_get, which fetches details for a single hospital, so the agent can clearly tell search from retrieval.

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 notes that search results are returned in 'items' and explicitly routes detail needs to kh_get: 'Anschrift und Kontaktdaten liefert kh_get zum einzelnen Haus.' This tells the agent when to use this tool and when to switch to a sibling, although it does not describe exclusions like OR/AND semantics or exact-match requirements.

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