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

The annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent, and the description adds that matching is performed over the wording of quality criteria and that hits are returned under 'items'. No destructive or side-effect behavior exists to disclose, and the search behavior is more explicit than the bare search verb.

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?

Three compact German sentences state the action, the searchable scopes, an illustrative use case, and the result location. The most important verb and resource are front-loaded in the first sentence, with no redundant restatement of the title or schema.

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 search tool with only three parameters, a full input schema, and an output schema, the description covers what is searched, how to phrase a query, what additional question it can answer, and where results appear. Nothing an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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 input schema already documents query, year, and limit. The description reinforces the query semantics with new examples ('Linksherzkathetermessplatz', 'Rufbereitschaft jederzeit') and the reverse-lookup capability, but it does not materially change or add parameter requirements.

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 the specific verb 'Durchsucht' and identifies the resource as 'Leistungsgruppen nach § 135e SGB V', further scoping the search fields to 'Nummer, Bezeichnung und Wortlaut ihrer Qualitätskriterien'. It also adds the non-obvious reverse-lookup use case, so an agent can distinguish this search tool from plain getter siblings such as lg_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 gives clear contexts: searching by number/name/wording and answering the reverse question of which Leistungsgruppen require a certain criterion, e.g. 'Linksherzkathetermessplatz'. It does not explicitly tell the agent to use lg_get when an exact Leistungsgruppe is already known, so it stops short of a full when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement.

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