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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return shape (title, summary, link) and the content sources searched, and 'Sucht' implies a read-only operation. However, it says nothing about result limits, ranking behavior, empty-result handling, or whether snippets are cached.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the scope of the search followed by the expected answer format. Little waste, though the appeal 'Antworten bitte mit Quellenlink' is a bit informal and could be folded into a single statement.

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 simple read-only search with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what is searched and what is returned, which is enough to invoke it correctly. Minor gaps remain around result ordering and empty-result behavior.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (suche, anzahl) are already documented with examples and an explicit 1–10 default range. The description adds no syntax, format, or matching-semantics detail beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (Sucht) and resource (Beiträge von secureIT), enumerating the four content types it spans (Blog, Zahlen und Fakten, News, Wochenlage). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling check tools (dns_check, phishing_selbsttest, etc.), which perform technical checks rather than knowledge lookup.

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?

Usage is only implied: search the secureIT content for security knowledge. No explicit when-to-use conditions, no when-not-to-use, and no alternatives among siblings are named. The second sentence is an output instruction rather than selection guidance.

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