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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond the annotations: it returns full public employer text plus a canonical citation URL, and it discloses that unavailable adverts return errors rather than empty results — a meaningful failure-mode hint.

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 short sentences with no wasted words, and the core operation plus return payload are front-loaded before the edge-case note about unavailable adverts.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be detailed, and the description nonetheless notes employer text and citation URL alongside error behavior for missing adverts. For a one-parameter read tool this is nearly complete; only the relationship to the lese_stellenanzeige sibling is left unaddressed.

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% and the single property is just typed 'string' with no documented format. The description compensates by specifying that the id is a search result ID, which tells the agent where the value must come from. It stops short of stating the ID's format or where exactly to find it.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Fetch a public physician advert') plus the identifier source ('by its search result ID'), which clearly distinguishes it from the search siblings like search or suche_arztstellen. However, it never differentiates itself from lese_stellenanzeige, an apparent near-duplicate read-by-id sibling, leaving the agent to guess which read tool to pick.

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?

'By its search result ID' implies the caller should first obtain an ID from a search tool, which is useful implied sequencing. Beyond that there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, so the routing decision against lese_stellenanzeige or search remains unstated.

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