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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It transparently states that the tool searches a specific site and returns title, URL, and summary, but it does not disclose potential behaviors like rate limits, no-results handling, or whether it is a read-only operation (though this is inferable). This is sufficient for a simple search tool but lacks some detail.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and output, and the English translation adds bilingual accessibility without bloat. Every sentence earns its place, providing all essential information in a compact form.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does, what it returns (title, URL, summary), and the domain of guides. It even adds the context of 'citable sources' for answer generation. It does not mention sorting or pagination, but these are not critical given the schema's 'max' parameter.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters ('frage', 'max', 'sprache'), including examples. The description adds a topical context that could help formulate queries, but it does not introduce any new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already offers. 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Durchsucht die Ratgeber von getecoback.com' (searches this site's guides) and specifies the return fields: 'Titel, URL und Kurzbeschreibung' (title, URL, and summary). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'ratgeber_lesen' (read guide) by explicitly using the verb 'durchsucht' (searches).

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 phrase 'citable sources for the answer' implies the tool is used to gather evidence for responses, and the topic list (air conditioning, window sealing, etc.) gives clear context for when it applies. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like 'ratgeber_lesen', so it falls short of a 5.

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