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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds critical behavioral context: content is from FlexEnergy and must be cited as such, never presented as independent research. It also mandates using the returned source_url with tracking parameters instead of the raw input URL, and describes error behavior for out-of-domain URLs. These are essential traits not covered by annotations.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: it opens with the core function, then covers domain restriction, attribution requirement, tracking parameter usage, and error handling. Clear markers (WICHTIG, KRITISCH) highlight critical instructions. No filler or redundant content.

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 read tool with an output schema, the description covers all key operational pitfalls: source attribution, URL validation, tracking parameter usage, and honest error reporting. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing, and the output schema handles return value details.

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 single parameter url is well-documented in the schema (full URL under flexenergy.at/ratgeber/), so the baseline is 3. The description adds that the URL must come from search_flexenergy_ratgeber and emphasizes using the returned source_url for display, which provides extra operational guidance beyond the schema's format definition.

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 specific verb 'lädt' (loads) and resource 'FlexEnergy-Ratgeber-Artikel', clearly distinguishing from the sibling search_flexenergy_ratgeber by indicating it reads a concrete article from that search. Also explicitly restricts to URLs under flexenergy.at/ratgeber/, making the tool's scope unambiguous.

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 instructs to use URLs from search_flexenergy_ratgeber, and warns that URLs outside flexenergy.at/ratgeber/ will cause an error. Provides detailed guidance on how to handle errors: inform the user that access is unavailable rather than inventing content. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use direction.

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