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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the remaining burden is light. The description adds genuinely useful semantics beyond them: the ten-id cap and, importantly, that failures are reported per ad rather than aborting the whole call, which tells the agent to expect partial results.

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, zero filler, with the batch limit stated first and the return/error behavior second. Nothing can be removed without losing 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 single-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, the cap, and per-item success/failure reporting, which is most of what an agent needs to call it safely. The only real gap is the origin and format of publicIds.

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 reported as 0%, so the description carries the param burden, and it only partially does: it restates the maximum of ten ids but says nothing about where a publicId comes from or its format. The uniqueness and minimum-one constraints live only in the schema, and an agent must open it to learn the id shape.

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 a specific verb ("Liest") with a bounded scope ("bis zu zehn ausgewählte publicIds") and states the per-item outcome, so an agent knows this is a batch read of job ads. It does not explicitly name the singular sibling lese_stellenanzeige, so the batch-vs-single distinction must be inferred from the plural and the ten-id limit.

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?

Batch usage is implied by "bis zu zehn ausgewählte publicIds", but the description never says when to prefer this over lese_stellenanzeige for a single ad, nor what to do when more than ten ids are needed. The usage context is present but not stated as a routing rule.

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