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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it reveals almost nothing: it does not say whether matching is exact or fuzzy, whether results are paginated, or that it is a safe read-only lookup (though 'finden' implies read). An output schema exists, so return format is partly covered elsewhere, but matching semantics remain undisclosed.

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, purpose front-loaded before the kind enumeration. The pipe-delimited value list is slightly awkward formatting but wastes no words.

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?

Output schema existence removes the need to describe return values, and the operation is clearly a lookup. However, for a search-style tool with three parameters at 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the gaps around matching semantics and sibling routing leave the definition only minimally sufficient.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It usefully enumerates the valid `kind` values, which the schema lacks as an enum, but says nothing about `name` matching behavior or the `limit` parameter's meaning and default.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Akteure ... finden') and scopes it to actors with a public role, then enumerates the actor categories (Abgeordnete, Fraktionen, Parteien, Ministerien). An agent can distinguish this from get_actor by the 'find' vs 'get' verb, though the description never explicitly contrasts them.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus the sibling tools get_actor (fetch by identifier) or search (general discovery). The list of actor kinds implies a lookup/discovery use case but the description never states the condition that selects this tool over those alternatives.

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