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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), lowering the burden. The description nonetheless adds real behavioral context beyond them: every answer comes with sources ('Jede Antwort mit Quellen') and there are hard content limits (no prices, no success guarantees). This is useful disclosure not captured by the structured fields.

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 compact sentences: the scope is front-loaded, followed by the content constraints with no filler. It could be tighter, but every clause carries information.

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?

A read-only, source-backed information tool with no output schema, so return-format explanation is unnecessary. The description covers the subject domain and constraints adequately; only the routing versus sibling tools remains unaddressed.

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 100% and both parameters are enums with their own descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the topic categories but adds no syntax or selection nuance (e.g., when topic=program versus programs) beyond what the schema already provides.

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+resource: 'Öffentliche Auskunft über Saxophone Society' with the exact scope (Anbieter, Programme Academy/Circle, einzelnes Programm, Vergleich). It clearly maps to the four enum topics, so an agent knows what content is returned. However, it does not differentiate itself from the siblings (ask, next-step, search), leaving the reader to infer why this differs from a generic 'ask'.

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 only implied through the topic taxonomy; there is no explicit 'use this when…' or 'use search instead of ask for…'. The constraints ('keine Preise, keine Erfolgsgarantie') bound scope but do not route the agent among alternatives. Adequate but with a clear gap in when-to-use guidance.

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