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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context: the scope of the index, the fact that content is German, and the return shape (URL + snippet). It doesn't mention result ranking or empty-result behavior, but that's a minor gap.

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 corpus scope front-loaded, followed by the follow-up action and query-language tip. The parenthetical section list is dense but informative; nothing is wasted, though it is slightly packed.

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 correctly explains the return (matching pages with URL and snippet) and points to get_page for the full content, which is everything an agent needs to use the result set correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, and the description mostly echoes the schema's 'preferably German' note. The added German example terms are mildly helpful but don't extend the semantics of query or limit.

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 (full-text search over oqda.de) and enumerates the covered content areas, so the agent knows exactly what corpus is searched. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_page, which is the read-in-full counterpart.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: search here, then 'read a page in full with get_page', and advises German query terms with examples. No explicit exclusions or comparisons against the other siblings, but the workflow context is clear.

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