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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral value by disclosing the response structure ('Treffer stehen in items') and the specific data elements included, such as Kodier-Kennzeichen, §115b SGB V information, and DKR/SEG-4 references. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately explains the search behavior and then adds compact, relevant detail about result contents. There is no filler or repetition of the schema; every clause contributes meaning.

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 full parameter descriptions, read-only/idempotent annotations, and an output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains what is searched, what query forms are accepted, and what the result items contain. However, given the large sibling list including opsalpha_search, a brief note on when not to use this tool or which sibling covers the alphabetical index would make it fully unambiguous.

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%, and each parameter already has a clear description: query supports code or text, year selects the catalog year, and limit controls the maximum number of hits. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 action ('Durchsucht den OPS') and a clearly defined resource (OPS), plus the two accepted query modes: Kode or Prozedurtext. It also describes what the results contain, which makes the tool's purpose distinct from the 'get' siblings in the tool list.

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 intended use is implied: use this tool when you need to search OPS by code or procedure text. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer ops_get, opsalpha_search, or other sibling search tools, so the agent must infer the boundary from the name and description alone.

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