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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the caveat 'ohne Erfolgsgarantie' (without guarantee of success), which is a mild behavioral expectation-setter, but it does not disclose outcome format, failure modes, or comparison criteria.

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 a single short sentence with no filler or redundant clauses. It is front-loaded with the action and object, though it is essentially identical to the title and adds minimal structural value beyond that.

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?

Given the low complexity, no parameters, and read-only/idempotent annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema, it does not clarify what the comparison result looks like or what 'sachlich' comparison means in practice, leaving some ambiguity for an agent deciding whether this is the right tool.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema already covers 100% of them. The description therefore has no parameter burden to carry, and the baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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?

Usage is implied: an agent can infer the tool is for comparing programs, but the description gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over sibling tools like saxsoc-geo-programs or saxsoc-geo-search. There are no exclusions or alternative conditions stated.

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