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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful behavioral fact that a missing slug yields a list rather than an error, but says nothing about return format, pagination, or article size. That is roughly the level of added context the calibration example credits with a 3.

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 with the mode-switching rule front-loaded; the parenthetical topic list is long but earns its place by supporting topical matching and sibling disambiguation. No filler sentences.

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 two-optional-parameter read tool with full annotations and no output schema, the description covers both invocation modes and even signals the content language (German). Only minor gaps remain, such as what an article response contains.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes slightly beyond the schema by specifying the conditional relationship between the two optional parameters — slug selects one article, its absence switches to list mode where query acts as a keyword filter — which the schema only hints at.

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 the resource (GründerX-Ratgeber / founder guides) and enumerates its topic scope (Rechtsformen, UG/GmbH, Kleinunternehmer, Förderung, Steuern, E-Commerce, Versicherungen, International), which is enough to separate it from the sibling tools covering deadlines, events, and credits. It does not state the verb explicitly, but 'Ohne slug: Liste der Artikel' makes the read/list operation clear.

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?

It gives clear operational context for both modes: omit slug to get the article list, optionally narrowed by Stichwort. That tells the agent when to use the list mode versus fetching a single article, though it names no explicit alternatives or exclusions among the sibling tools.

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