Laborregister Deutschland

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered and 'no modifications' partly restates it. The description still adds real value beyond the annotations: the 10-result ceiling, source-linked (not curated) results, the privacy prohibition on personal/health data, and the pointer to source usage terms.

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?

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with purpose and scope, then constraints, then the practical language tip and legal pointer. No sentence is filler and nothing important is buried.

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 no output schema, the description does sketch the return shape ('up to 10 source-linked matches') and covers scope, privacy, and legal constraints, which is enough for a search tool. It does not describe result fields or pagination, but the cap and source-linkage note cover the essentials.

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 80%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a genuine semantic hint ('German search terms work best') that affects how q and probe should be populated. It also frames the filters as parameter plus optional sample/provider, matching the anyOf structure without re-documenting 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 ('Search the German Laborregister for directly orderable laboratory analyses') and names the searchable dimensions (parameter, sample, provider). An agent knows exactly what domain and what object type it is querying.

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?

It sets clear boundaries – results are capped, this is not a complete market survey, not medical advice, and no purchases/modifications occur – plus a practical usage hint (German search terms work best) and a privacy rule (do not send personal or health data). There are no sibling tools, so alternative-routing guidance is not applicable.

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