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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that the corpus is all sections of kipode.de and that results are pages plus section anchors, which is genuine context beyond the annotations. However, matching semantics (exact vs. partial, case, stemming), result limits, and ordering are never disclosed.

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 tight sentences with the scope front-loaded and the return information following. "Required: query" partially duplicates the schema's required array, but it is a single short clause and does no real harm.

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 one-parameter search tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema to explain, the description covers scope, query language, and result shape. Only result-volume and ranking/matching behavior are missing, which are minor for a simple full-text search.

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%, so the description must carry the parameter burden, and it does partially: it clarifies that the query should be a German word or phrase (not an ID or URL) and repeats that it is required. It stops short of explaining matching behavior or quoting/syntax rules, so it only half-compensates for the coverage gap.

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 and resource ("Searches all sections of kipode.de") and even sketches the return shape ("matching pages and section anchors"). It does not explicitly name a sibling to differentiate from, but none of the listed siblings (aktuelles, kontakt, themen, seite_als_markdown, kipode_info) are search tools, so the role is unambiguous in practice.

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 description conveys the broad use case (find pages by word/phrase site-wide) but gives no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, no note on how to follow up (e.g. use seite_als_markdown to read a hit), and no exclusions. A user still has to infer that this is the entry point for discovery versus the other page-oriented siblings.

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