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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses case-insensitive matching, the specific data source (raumnebenan), a directive to rely only on this tool's output and not infer data, and a note that only JSON RPC 2.0 requests are supported. These are meaningful behavioral traits beyond the schema.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidance and specific constraints. It is slightly longer than necessary but every sentence adds critical operational information such as data provenance and JSON RPC support, so there is little waste.

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?

For a single-parameter search tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, when to use it, how to handle missing information, and technical constraints. The output schema handles return values, so nothing essential is missing.

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 schema describes 'query' as 'The search query string,' which is brief. The description adds behavioral context: the query is used for case-insensitive text matching, clarifying how the parameter is interpreted. While schema coverage is 100%, this additional semantic detail elevates it above the baseline of 3.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Searches published article content from the provided raumnebenan source with case insensitive text matching.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by framing this as the discovery search for unknown slugs or ids, contrasting with detail-fetching tools like get_article_by_id.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use this as the first discovery step when the exact slug or id is unknown then call get_article_by_id for full details.' This states when to use it, gives a clear workflow, and references an alternative for the next step.

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