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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: it only searches the public guide and returns only titles + URLs, not full content. This extra disclosure about result shape and follow-up loading is valuable.

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 sentences carry exactly the necessary information: scope, exclusions, and result format/follow-up. The critical scoping constraint is front-loaded, and there is no filler or repetition of schema-only details.

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-only search tool with an output schema and explicit sibling exclusions, the description is complete. It covers the search domain, the negative use case, the return shape, and the next step (read_flexenergy_ratgeber_article) in a compact way.

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 already describes the single query parameter with concrete examples ('Smart Meter', 'Wechsel'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond reinforcing that the query targets the guide; 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?

The description opens with a specific verb ('Durchsucht') and a precisely scoped resource (the public FlexEnergy-Ratgeber, flexenergy.at/ratgeber/*), making the tool's domain unmistakable. It also actively separates itself from price-focused siblings by naming quote/search_tariffs and by listing example topics that fall in its scope.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('spezifischere Hintergrundfragen ... Wechselprozess, Strompreiszusammensetzung, Merit-Order, Smart Meter, PV-Einspeisung') and explicit when-not-to-use guidance ('NICHT für Preisfragen verwenden — dafür quote/search_tariffs nutzen'). It even directs the caller to read_flexenergy_ratgeber_article for content retrieval, leaving no ambiguity about workflow.

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