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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return shape (id, Titel, Link), which is genuine value since no output schema exists, but omits any mention of result limits, pagination, or ranking behavior.

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 sentences, zero filler: the first establishes scope, the second states the return contract. Front-loaded and appropriately sized for a one-parameter tool.

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 simple one-param search with no output schema, the description supplies the missing return-field information and identifies the data source. The remaining gap is the complete absence of routing guidance among the four sibling search tools.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema coverage and an inline example ("Chatbot für Kundenservice"), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about query syntax, language handling, or matching behavior, which is the baseline-3 case.

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 (durchsucht) and resource (ki-radar24.de, a German directory) and enumerates the three indexed entity types, so the agent knows what corpus is being searched. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling search tools (ki_tools_suchen, ki_unternehmen_suchen, freelancer_finden), which cover overlapping subsets.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all. With four sibling tools that are narrower versions of the same operation, the description should say whether this is the general-purpose fallback or when to prefer the specialized searches; it says nothing.

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