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

The annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation in a closed world. The description adds useful behavior by stating that it returns filter codes and hit counts and accepts the same filters as the search without page and sort, but it does not explain the return shape, whether counts are exact or approximate, or any limits.

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 two compact sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. The second sentence efficiently clarifies parameter compatibility and exclusions.

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 17-parameter, read-only facet tool with no output schema, the definition covers the main purpose and parameter relationship to search. It still leaves gaps around how the filter codes and hit counts are returned, what 'aktuelle Suche' means in practice, and when the tool should be preferred over inspecting search results directly.

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?

The description adds meaningful semantics by saying the tool accepts the same filters as the search, minus page and sort, which helps an agent understand the 17-parameter set as a compatible subset rather than an unrelated schema. Individual parameter meanings are largely left to the schema, whose description coverage is moderate at 65%.

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 verb and resource: it returns available filter codes and hit counts for the current search. It also clarifies that it takes the same filters as the search but without page and sort, which distinguishes it from actually running a search, though it does not explicitly name the sibling search tool.

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 phrase 'zur aktuellen Suche' and 'Nimmt dieselben Filter wie die Suche' imply this should be used alongside a search to inspect filters and counts. However, it does not explicitly say when to call this tool instead of the search tool or whether it should be called before or after a search.

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