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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond that: results come back as excerpts with source URLs, and the content is citation material rather than instructions to the assistant — an explicit prompt-injection caveat that annotations cannot express.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the return format, then the safety caveat. No filler and nothing 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 steps in to describe the return (excerpts plus source URL), and both parameters are fully specified in the schema. Minor omissions like pagination/snippet-size behavior are acceptable for a 2-parameter search 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: query (German search terms, with examples) and limit (default 5, max 10) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameter format or limits, so the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb (durchsuchen) plus the resources searched (veröffentlichte Saxophon-Ratgeber und Programmseiten) and the return shape. It does not explicitly name or contrast with the siblings saxsoc-geo-ask or saxsoc-geo-info, so an agent must infer the search-vs-ask split from the names alone.

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: this is the retrieval-style tool for published guide content, with saxsoc-geo-ask as the natural alternative for generated answers. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or routing rule, leaving the search/search-vs-question distinction to inference.

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