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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: it returns only 'Titel + URL als Trefferliste', not full content, and is limited to public ratgeber pages. This clarifies what the agent can expect from the result.

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 clause adds value: scope, excluded use case, alternative tools, return shape, and next-step action. Key constraints are front-loaded with 'AUSSCHLIESSLICH' and 'NICHT', making the boundaries immediately visible.

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 annotations covering safety and an output schema present, the description is complete. It tells the agent what to search, what not to search, what the response contains, and which sibling to use for the next step.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds domain context by giving examples of suitable query topics like 'Smart Meter' and 'Wechsel' and excludes price-focused queries. This helps the agent form better queries than the bare 'Suchbegriff' schema description alone.

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: 'Durchsucht AUSSCHLIESSLICH den öffentlichen FlexEnergy-Ratgeber' and gives the URL scope. It explicitly contrasts itself with quote/search_tariffs and read_flexenergy_ratgeber_article, so an agent can distinguish it from sibling tools without inspecting schemas.

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?

The description states exactly when to use it ('für spezifischere Hintergrundfragen jenseits von Tarifen/Preisschätzung') and when not to ('NICHT für Preisfragen verwenden'), naming quote/search_tariffs as the alternative. It also tells the agent to follow up with read_flexenergy_ratgeber_article for content, which is strong routing guidance.

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